Thomas Golda Extensive Research on 1 John 5:7

If you are correcting Marty Shue and Robert Earnest Wallis , you should correct Nathaniel Ellsworth Cornwall as well.

His material is in two articles.

The Genuineness of I John v. 7 - 1874
http://books.google.com/books?id=0cDSAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA638
p. 625-641

The genuineness of I. John, v. 7 proved by neglected witnesses -(1877_
http://books.google.com/books?id=YaPSAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA513
p. 509-528

============================

You may have taken the Faust Nairon material from here:

A Translation, in English Daily Used, of the Peshito-Syriac Text, and of the Received Greek Text, of Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, and 1 John: With an Introduction on the Peshito-Syriac Text, and the Revised Greek Text of 1881 (1889)
William Norton
https://books.google.com/books?id=U0QYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR45

That would be an indirect source, and even that does not match your chart.

============================

With those four all needing correction, we can be quite sure the other seven also need some correction.

So tell us, Steven.

What's the Latin predicate in "et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est et tres unum sunt"?

Who or what are the Latin subject/subjects in "et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est et tres unum sunt"?

What grammatical case do the Latin subject/subjects take in "et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est et tres unum sunt"?

Who or what are the Latin object/objects in "et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est et tres unum sunt"?

What grammatical case do the Latin object/objects take in "et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est et tres unum sunt"?

And how do the different Latin grammatical cases here affect the translation into English?

And how does the Latin preposition "de" affect the translation of Cyprian's Latin predicate in De Unitate 6:5?

And how does the context affect the translation of Cyprian's Latin text of De Unitate 6:5?

And how do all these grammatical elements of the text combine to give a coherent and accurate translation of the English?

Note the "how" part Steven, it requires from you a sensible explanation.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Active member
So you understand how to translate the Latin grammar accurately here Steven?

Theo1689 already pointed out that your claim about the grammar, the order of "it is written", is nonsense.

1) Your version #2 is literally possible in English, but it is considered VERY awkward, and very uncommon.

You falsely claimed that translators who did not use #2 were "devious". Some were supporters of the verse authenticity, some were opponents, you owe them all an apology.

Similarly all your quotation marks in Latin stuff is nonsense.

Then you try posts with lots of red herring questions.

It is pretty funny how folks can avoid the obvious and clear meaning of ECW passages.


Cyprian
● On the Unity of the Church:
He who breaks the peace and concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, "I and the Father are one;" and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, "And these three are one."
(Cyprian. Treatise. On the Unity of the Church. Book 1.6, ANF, 1995, vol. 5, p. 423)

• Epistle 73 to Jubianum:
If any one could be baptized by a heretic, and could obtain remission of sins, - if he has obtained remission of sins, and is sanctified, and become the temple of God? I ask, of what God? If of the Creator, he cannot be His temple, who has not believed in Him ; if of Christ, neither can he who denies Him to be God, be His temple ; if of the Holy Spirit, since the three are one, how can the Holy Spirit be reconciled to him, who is an enemy, either of the Father or of the Son?"
(Cyprian, Epistle 73 [to Jubaianus]; Translated by Thomas Hartwell Horne, 1825; Horne, "IV. Sect. V. On the First General Epistle of John" in Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, 1825, vol 4, p. 452)

Feel free to give your alternate English wording.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Active member
1) Your version #2 is literally possible in English, but it is considered VERY awkward, and very uncommon.

No, I pointed out that YOUR interpretation of the text is "nonsense".
This is the SECOND time you've misrepresented me.
Do NOT do it again.

You accused #2 of being VERY awkward :

SA
2) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit it is written

Theo
1) Your version #2 is literally possible in English, but it is considered VERY awkward, and very uncommon.

And that was the word order that TNC accepted, because it matched the Latin word order (which is basically irrelevant) accusing #1 of being devious.

The simple fact is that you did not understand the discussion, and you made a truthful and accurate analysis that refuted TNC.

It is funny.

Do you want some backward moon-walk boots?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
You accused #2 of being VERY awkward :

SA
2) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit it is written

Theo
1) Your version #2 is literally possible in English, but it is considered VERY awkward, and very uncommon.

I guess you missed the part where you LEFT OUT the rest of the quote, which proves your interpretation false, "it is written, 'THESE THREE ARE ONE'."

You will NEVER find an instance (in any language I'm aware of), where it says, "it is written", and includes a quote both before and after the "it is written".


So as I said,
Do NOT misrepresent me again.
 

Steven Avery

Active member
I guess you missed the part where you LEFT OUT the rest of the quote, which proves your interpretation false, "it is written, 'THESE THREE ARE ONE'."
You will NEVER find an instance (in any language I'm aware of), where it says, "it is written", and includes a quote both before and after the "it is written".
So as I said, Do NOT misrepresent me again.

My usage was ONLY to show the grammatical confusion of TNC, not to give an interpretation.
TNC was insisting on the Latin word order in English, which is inferior, as YOU confirmed.

You simply did not understand the discussion, and have gone downhill from there.

You DID refute TNC, which was appreciated (and to your chagrin!)

And STOP falsely saying I have misrepresented anything.

=======================

And nobody I know ever said that "of the Father, and of The Son, and of the Holy Spirit" was a direct QUOTE of the Bible text from Cyprian.
You are deceiving yourself that I ever made that claim.
It is a subordinate clause saying what was the referent of "and the three are one".
That is why translators do NOT put that subordinate clause in quotation marks.

e.g. in English you could use this alternate word order:
It is written (Scripture) "and the three are one", referring to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The heavenly witnesses verse.

=======================
 
Last edited:
My usage was ONLY to show the grammatical confusion of TNC, not to give an interpretation.
TNC was insisting on the Latin word order in English, which is inferior, as YOU confirmed.

You simply did not understand the discussion, and have gone downhill from there.

You DID refute TNC, which was appreciated (and to your chagrin!)

And STOP falsely saying I have misrepresented anything.

=======================

And nobody I know ever said that "of the Father, and of The Son, and of the Holy Spirit" was a direct QUOTE of the Bible text from Cyprian.
You are deceiving yourself that I ever made that claim.
It is a subordinate clause saying what was the referent of "and the three are one".
That is why translators do NOT put that subordinate clause in quotation marks.

e.g. in English you could use this alternate word order:
It is written (Scripture) "and the three are one", referring to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The heavenly witnesses verse.

=======================

People can rearrange the word order to suit in English.

You can't with the Latin.
 
My usage was ONLY to show the grammatical confusion of TNC, not to give an interpretation.
TNC was insisting on the Latin word order in English, which is inferior, as YOU confirmed.

You simply did not understand the discussion, and have gone downhill from there.

You DID refute TNC, which was appreciated (and to your chagrin!)

And STOP falsely saying I have misrepresented anything.

=======================

And nobody I know ever said that "of the Father, and of The Son, and of the Holy Spirit" was a direct QUOTE of the Bible text from Cyprian.
You are deceiving yourself that I ever made that claim.
It is a subordinate clause saying what was the referent of "and the three are one".
That is why translators do NOT put that subordinate clause in quotation marks.

e.g. in English you could use this alternate word order:
It is written (Scripture) "and the three are one", referring to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The heavenly witnesses verse.

=======================

1. Does the English grammar dictate the Latin grammar?

2. Or does the Latin grammar dictate the English grammar?

You Steven, are saying in effect, that 1 is true, and 2 is false.

That's whole game right there.
 

organgrinder

Well-known member
So tell us, Steven.

What's the Latin predicate in "et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est et tres unum sunt"?

Who or what are the Latin subject/subjects in "et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est et tres unum sunt"?

What grammatical case do the Latin subject/subjects take in "et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est et tres unum sunt"?

Who or what are the Latin object/objects in "et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est et tres unum sunt"?

What grammatical case do the Latin object/objects take in "et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est et tres unum sunt"?

And how do the different Latin grammatical cases here affect the translation into English?

And how does the Latin preposition "de" affect the translation of Cyprian's Latin predicate in De Unitate 6:5?

And how does the context affect the translation of Cyprian's Latin text of De Unitate 6:5?

And how do all these grammatical elements of the text combine to give a coherent and accurate translation of the English?

Note the "how" part Steven, it requires from you a sensible explanation.
He won't because he can't, therefore he will deflect.
 
Wrong again, there is no difference in meaning.

Here is Robert Ernest Wallis (1820-1900) , whom you attempt to criticize.

The Writings of Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (1870)
https://books.google.com/books?id=ywn1mbUlqA4C&pg=PA382

View attachment 1847

Same two quotes from Cyprian, clearly delineated.


These two, between the quotes, are the same meaning in English:

1) it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit
2) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit it is written

Your problem is in English.
Is English your native language?

And the Wallis commentary footnote is correct too.

View attachment 1848

Steven Avery has testified that he takes the position that Cyprian's De Unitate 6:5, Part 2, "and again, about the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written" constitutes a reference, and not the quotation of 1 John 5:7 itself.

Steven has also testified that he takes the position that Cyprian's De Unitate 6:5, Part 3, "And these three are one." is the quotation itself.

Keep this in mind when he argues that the rearrangement of the word order makes no difference.

An interesting point is made on Wikipedia, hinting at the underlying Latin syntax in the article about Johannine Comma under the subheading "Cyprian of Carthage - Unity of the Church", it says:

[54] Daniel B. Wallace notes that although Cyprian uses 1 John to argue for the Trinity, he appeals to this as an allusion via the three witnesses—"written of"—rather than by quoting a proof-text—"written that".

54. Daniel B. Wallace, "The Comma Johanneum and Cyprian"

Wallace, a grammarian, most likely knew that the Latin grammar (in addition to where the "scriptum est" is placed in the sentence) that the syntax does not allow for "the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" to be part of the quotation of what "is written".

I'm not going to give too much of the game away to Avery, I want him and his research team to figure it out for themselves.
 
We have established THE FACT that Cyprian is interpreting.

Fulgentius visibly and directly connects Cyprian's allegorical/symbolic/mystical/spiritual interpretation of the Trinity from De Oratione Dominica 34 to Cyprians De Unitate 6:5.

Facundus visibly and directly says Cyprian interprets 1 John 5:8 allegorically/symbolically/mystically/spiritually in De Unitate 6:5.

Surely it is the safer option to accept that Fulgentius and Facusndus were not telling lies or making it up that Cyprian interpreted 1 John 5:8 "et tres unum sunt" allegorically/symbolically/mystically/spiritually "about the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" than what Steven Avery say's - who would NOT understand a SINGLE SENTENCE Cyprian said if he was alive and SPOKE to him in Latin.
 
Last edited:
Theological and Geographical and Historical Context.

Again:

Clement of Alexandria visibly allegorized 1 John 5:6-8 (as three life-saving virtues in the one person Jesus Christ) before Cyprian in Africa (Com. Cath. Epist.).

Origen of Alexandria visibly allegorized 1 John 5:6-8 (three kinds of baptisms of the one person Jesus Christ) contemporary with Cyprian in Africa (Com. G. John)

Origen of Alexandria visibly allegorized 1 John 5:8 (three things, the body, the soul, the spirit as servants of their Masters, Father, Son, HS) contemporary with (if genuine) Cyprian in Africa (Catena Sel. Ps. 122).

Cyprian himself visibly allegorized Daniel 6 and NT verses (of three hours and three cycles about or in respects to the Trinity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit) himself in Africa (De Orat. 34)

Fulgentius visibly connects Cyprian's allegory of Daniel 6 (of three hours and three cycles of the Trinity, the Father, Son, HS) from Cyprian's De Oratione Dominica 34 directly to a quotation of - this passage - Cyprian's De Unitate 6:5, after Cyprian in North Africa.

Facundus visibly and explicitly says that Cyprian allegorically interpreted 1 John 5:8 "about the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" in De Unitate 6:5 after Cyprian in North Africa.

It's not without precedent, to understand Cyprian's interpretive comments "about the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" as an implicit and emerging (perhaps even unspoken) tradition of interpretive licence in regards to 1 John 5:7-8 in North Africa and elsewhere.

The contemporary and later history to some of the writers above is the mysterious and spiritual interpretations by Ambrose of Milan, Hysechius of Jerusalem, Augustine, Eucherius etc, that also confirm this is not a theory or fancy, but based on facts and written evidence.

This is additional context.
 

Steven Avery

Active member
Wallace, a grammarian, most likely knew that the Latin grammar (in addition to where the "scriptum est" is placed in the sentence) that the syntax does not allow for "the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" to be part of the quotation of what "is written".

"most likely knew"
Where does Wallace say that "the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" is not possible to be a part of the Johannine quotation, per Cyprian?
Or is this a creative fabrication, a devious way of trying to mix the issues in a confusing manner? Are you struggling with the English again, as where Theo corrected your idea about the word order?

In fact, Wallace is properly ultra-cautious, saying:
"does not afford proof that he knew of such wording."

Where is your TNC English text of Cyprian?
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Active member
Wikipedia article:

[54] Daniel B. Wallace notes that although Cyprian uses 1 John to argue for the Trinity, he appeals to this as an allusion via the three witnesses—"written of"—rather than by quoting a proof-text—"written that".

A fantasy of the Wikipedia writer. Wallace makes no such distinction.
 

Steven Avery

Active member
Clement of Alexandria visibly allegorized ....
Origen of Alexandria visibly allegorized ...
Origen of Alexandria visibly allegorized ...
Cyprian himself visibly allegorized Daniel 6 and NT verses ...

You are claiming that Cyprian invisibly allegorized the earthly witnesses
This is simply absurd.

Such writing would be foolish and make him look like an ignoramus the moment his readers opened their Bibles.
 
Last edited:
You are claiming that Cyprian invisibly allegorized the earthly witnesses
This is simply absurd.

Such writing would be foolish and make him look like an ignoramus the moment his readers opened their Bibles.

It is the safer and more sure option to believe Facundus and Fulgentius than you.

Both quote De Unitate 6:5.

Fulgentius directly connects Cyprian's De Unitate 6:5 to Cyprian's visible allegory at De Oratione Dominica 34.

Facundus says visibly that Cyprian interprets 1 John 5:8.

Where does any contemporary ECW to Cyprian, Fulgentius, or Facundus explicitly say that Cyprian himself did NOT, or it is forbidden to understand that Cyprian's De Unitate 6:5 was an allegorical interpretation of 1 John 5:8?
 
Top