Thomas Golda Extensive Research on 1 John 5:7

I want to know how is it that no one in favor of the Comma (to my present knowledge at least) comments on Fulgentius' comments on De Oratione Dominica 34 in connection with De Unitate 6:5?

Why did Horne and Travis deliberately (IMO) omit the De Oratione Dominica 34 comments in Fulgentius?

Why did they remove the whole Latin text below in their printed texts posted above?

"Nam et in libro de Oratione dominica, ut ostenderet Trinitatem unius deitatis, esse nec inter se aliquam diversitatem habere, Danielem et tres pueros, ternarum horarum circulis revolutis, orationem fundere solitos memoravit. Ubi et in trium horarum curriculo, et in unius orationis officio, unum Deum esse Trinitatem evidenter ostendit."



Cap 2 - Copy.PNG




CYPRIAN

DE ORATIONE DOMINICA

“On The Lord's Prayer” By T. H. Bindley, 1914

Chapter 34.


“Now in the offering of prayer we find that the Three Children with Daniel, being strong in faith and victors even in captivity, observed the third, sixth, and ninth hours, [Daniel 6:10] in as it were a symbol of the Trinity which would be revealed in these last times. For the progress of the first hour to the third shows the perfected number of the Trinity; likewise from the fourth to the sixth declares another Trinity; and when the period from the seventh to the ninth is completed, the perfect Trinity is numbered through a triad of hours each. These spaces of hours were long ago fixed upon by the worshippers of God, who observed them as the appointed and lawful times for prayer. After-events have made it manifest that from of old these [Page 67] were types, inasmuch as righteous men formerly prayed thus. For at the third hour, the Holy Spirit descended upon the disciples and fulfilled the gracious promise of the Lord. Likewise at the sixth hour Peter, going up to the house-top, was instructed by the sign as well as by the voice of God bidding him to admit all to the grace of salvation, when previously he was doubtful whether Gentiles ought to be cleansed. And from the sixth to the ninth hour the Lord, being crucified, washed away our sins in His own Blood; and that He might redeem and quicken us, He then perfected His victory by His Passion.”​


Does anyone know why they did this?



Not only is it the Latin text that's missing but in the English translation given by Horne its missing too!

Here's Horne's translation:


Cap 1 Page 511.PNG


Page 512 the translation missing the Fulgentius' whole De Oratione Dominica 34 commentary in the immediate context of De Unitate 6:5:


Cap 1b Page 512 - Copy.PNG


He omits this essential and immediate context both in the Latin (which we now know that it WAS in the Lugd. 1677 printed text he took it from) and omits it in the English as well.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Why do neither Travis or Horne comment specifically on the immediate context of the Daniel commentary by Cyprian in Fulgentius at all ?​
Why do neither Travis or Horne comment specifically on the connection being made by Fulgentius by these comments between Cyprian's De Unitate 6:5 reference and Cyprian's De Oratione Dominica?

Same reason there is no commentary by Isaac Newton, Thomas Emlyn, Richard Porson, John Oxlee, William Orme, John Scott Porter, Scrivener, Westcott and Hort, Raymond Brown, Daniel Wallace, Grantley McDonald and a dozen other contra writers.

No significance.

This also covers your posts 1479 and 1480.
 
Last edited:
Same reason there is no commentary by Isaac Newton, Thomas Emlyn, Richard Porson, John Oxlee, William Orme, John Scott Porter, Scrivener, Westcott and Hort, Raymond Brown, Daniel Wallace, Grantley McDonald and a dozen other contra writers.

No significance.

This also covers your posts 1479 and 1480.

If Fulgentius thought it was of "no significance," and had no relevance to the subject at hand then why did he write about De Oratione Dominica 34 in the next breath after De Unitate 6:5?

Fulgentius simply show's us the uncomplicated concept - that Cyprian interprets Cyprian - by connecting two passages that Cyprian wrote on the same subject (one expounding and expanding more fully on the other).

In your eagerness to avoid and sweep this under the carpet, you haven't considered another obvious (and the very real) possibility that this text SIMPLY hasn't received enough attention or been put under ENOUGH SCRUTINY by the "Contra" side UNTIL NOW?

Perhaps Wallis and Grantley have taken it prima facie that the Fulgentius references were nothing but Pro-Comma (as I did), and looked no further into the CONTEXT (wider and immediate).
 
Last edited:
Have any of the Pro-Comma commentators commented on the Cyprian commentary by Fulgentius on Cyprian's De Oratione Dominica 34 - AT ALL?

Anyone?

By all means let us hear what they have to say.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
If Fulgentius thought it was of "no significance," and had no relevance to the subject at hand then why did he write about De Oratione Dominica 34 in the next breath after De Unitate 6:5?

No significance to questions of heavenly and earthly witnesses.

No mention of spirit, water and blood.
In fact, Fulgentius is never concerned with the earthly witnesses, in the writings that we have extant.

Thus, the reference to De Oratione is not mentioned by either pro or contra heavenly witnesses writers.

You are welcome to write a paper that tries to find some special connections.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Correction of sorts:

You can find more on Tertullian, Cyprian, Phoebadius and Fulgentius on Daniel's hours of prayer in Richard Porson and Henry Thomas Armfield. This includes the ideas in Cyprian's Lord Prayer, De Oratione Dominica, section.

Bengel and Griesbach may start it off with discussion of allegory, and Burgess is around town there in his Thomas Beynon book. Knittel has the good section that is on this thread, however not on the Lord’s Prayer.

Porson threw out the absurd idea that Fulgentius only knew the heavenly witnesses through Cyprian!

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

Ultimately, most of this, while an interesting back-and-forth, is not very relevant, because Cyprian and other writers never spin an invisible allegory. They would be confusing their readers and look very foolish when the reader opened up their Bible (if there was only the earthly witnesses.)

Henry Thomas Armstrong
"a certain mystical interpretation which he (Cyprian) has not given or alluded to, of a verse which he has not quoted!"

Mill apparently has a similar pithy quote in Latin :).

==========================
 
Last edited:
No significance to questions of heavenly and earthly witnesses.

No mention of spirit, water and blood.
In fact, Fulgentius is never concerned with the earthly witnesses, in the writings that we have extant.

Thus, the reference to De Oratione is not mentioned by either pro or contra heavenly witnesses writers.

You are welcome to write a paper that tries to find some special connections.

Thank you. So this definitely deserves more attention and more scrutiny.

Correction of sorts:

You can find more on Tertullian, Cyprian, Phoebadius and Fulgentius on Daniel's hours of prayer in Richard Porson and Henry Thomas Armfield. This includes the ideas in Cyprian's Lord Prayer, De Oratione Dominica, section.

Bengel and Griesbach may start it off with discussion of allegory, and Burgess is around town there in his Thomas Beynon book. Knittel has the good section that is on this thread, however not on the Lord’s Prayer.

Porson threw out the absurd idea that Fulgentius only knew the heavenly witnesses through Cyprian!

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

Ultimately, most of this, while an interesting back-and-forth, is not very relevant, because Cyprian and other writers never spin an invisible allegory. They would be confusing their readers and look very foolish when the reader opened up their Bible (if there was only the earthly witnesses.)

Henry Thomas Armstrong
"a certain mystical interpretation which he (Cyprian) has not given or alluded to, of a verse which he has not quoted!"

Mill apparently has a similar pithy quote in Latin :).

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

Actually Cyprian does spin Scripturally unreferenced allegory in the very same chapter (chapter 6) about Noah's Ark, and also in the preceding context (chapter 5) about the sun and rays, trees and roots, springs, streams and dams, etc.

Neither of these two allegories are preceded or followed by a Scripture reference or quotation - specifically applied to - these specific allegories.

Cyprian

On the Unity of the Church

By Robert Ernest Wallis, 1868

Chapter 5


"...As there are many rays of the sun, but one light; and many branches of a tree, but one strength based in its tenacious root; and since from one spring flow many streams, although the multiplicity seems diffused in the liberality of an overflowing abundance, yet the unity is still preserved in the source. Separate a ray of the sun from its body of light, its unity does not allow a division of light; break a branch from a tree — when broken, it will not be able to bud; cut off the stream from its fountain, and that which is cut off dries up. Thus also the Church, shone over with the light of the Lord, sheds forth her rays over the whole world, yet it is one light which is everywhere diffused, nor is the unity of the body separated. Her fruitful abundance spreads her branches over the whole world. She broadly expands her rivers, liberally flowing, yet her head is one, her source one..."

Cyprian

On the Unity of the Church

By Robert Ernest Wallis, 1868

Chapter 6


"...If any one could escape who was outside the Ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church..."
These ARE VERY REAL EXCEPTIONS (not imaginary or capable of being explained away) to the Cyprianic Pro-Comma (Scripture quotation + allegorical Scripture application or allegorical Scripture application followed by Scripture quotation) theory.

But these allegories are more fully expounded upon or have expanded explanations and Scripture references added by Cyprian elsewhere IN THE WIDER CONTEXT of the entire body of Cyprian's extant writings.

Such as:


CYPRIAN

DE ORATIONE DOMINICA

“On The Lord's Prayer” by T. H. Bindley, 1914

Chapter 34.


“Now in the offering of prayer we find that the Three Children with Daniel, being strong in faith and victors even in captivity, observed the third, sixth, and ninth hours, [Daniel 6:10] in as it were a symbol of the Trinity which would be revealed in these last times. For the progress of the first hour to the third shows the perfected number of the Trinity; likewise from the fourth to the sixth declares another Trinity; and when the period from the seventh to the ninth is completed, the perfect Trinity is numbered through a triad of hours each. These spaces of hours were long ago fixed upon by the worshippers of God, who observed them as the appointed and lawful times for prayer. After-events have made it manifest that from of old these [Page 67] were types, inasmuch as righteous men formerly prayed thus. For at the third hour, the Holy Spirit descended upon the disciples and fulfilled the gracious promise of the Lord. Likewise at the sixth hour Peter, going up to the house-top, was instructed by the sign as well as by the voice of God bidding him to admit all to the grace of salvation, when previously he was doubtful whether Gentiles ought to be cleansed. And from the sixth to the ninth hour the Lord, being crucified, washed away our sins in His own Blood; and that He might redeem and quicken us, He then perfected His victory by His Passion.”

In addition to these allegories being more fully expounded upon or have expanded explanations and Scripture references added by Cyprian elsewhere IN THE WIDER CONTEXT of the entire body of his extant writings, we find the same passages and contexts being more fully expounded upon or have expanded explanations and Scripture references added by other writers, like THE WIDER HISTORICAL CONTEXT of Cyprian's "Master" Tertuallian.

If there is any doubt Steven that when Cyprian says "the Trinity" in De Oratione Dominica 34 that he obviously meant "the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" then read the following from Tertullian - from whom Cyprian learned this eisegetical allegory from.

TERTULLIAN

DE ORATIONE

“On Prayer” by the Rev. S. Thelwall, 1869
Latin Text by Ernest Evans, 1953

Chapter 25


"...quod Danieli quoque legimus observatum utique ex Israelis disciplina, ne minus ter die saltem adoremus, debitores trium, Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti..."

"...so that what we read to have been observed by Daniel also, [Daniel 6:10] in accordance (of course) with Israel's discipline we pray at least not less than thrice in the day, debtors as we are to
Three, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit..."

TERTULLIAN

DE ORATIONE

“On Prayer” By Alexander Souter, 1919
Latin Text by Ernest Evans, 1953

Chapter 25


"...quod Danieli quoque legimus observatum utique ex Israelis disciplina, ne minus ter die saltem adoremus, debitores trium, Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti..."

"...We read also of Daniel's practice, [Daniel 6:10] which followed, you may be sure, the teaching of Israel: we ought, like him, to pray not less than thrice a day, being debtors to
the three, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit..."

TERTULLIAN

DE ORATIONE

“On Prayer” By Ernest Evans, 1953

Chapter 25


"...quod Danieli quoque legimus observatum utique ex Israelis disciplina, ne minus ter die saltem adoremus, debitores trium, Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti..."

"...as we read also was the practice of Daniel, [Daniel 6:10] arising evidently from Israel's discipline, we may worship not less than at least thrice a day, being the debtors of
three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit..."
So be assured Steven there can be no serious doubt that Cyprian means "the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" in his own version of De Oratione, in his chapter 34 where he says the number "three" from the passage in Daniel 6:10 is "a symbol (or sacrament or mystery) of the Trinity".
 
Last edited:
And if Cyprian reads a allegorical interpretation into the number "three" from Daniel 6:10 (as does Tertullian) in De Oratione Dominica 34 etc then this real proof that Eucherius' statement that people were IN FACT interpreting 1 John 5:7-8 allegorically or mystically or spiritually is not untrue, but a factual, historically accurate, and therefore reliable statement.


Eucherius of Lyon

De Quaestionibus difficilioribus Veteris et Novi Testamenti

“Concerning Difficult Questions in the Old Testament and New Testament”

Chapter 3


"...The majority interpret the passage here mystically, reading into that particular place the Trinity. But why? Because it is held to be a witness to the Christ. 'The water,' because it indicates that this is speaking of the Father Himself. "Lest I forsake the Source of living water" [Jeremiah 2:13]. 'Blood,' points out that through his passion, blood flowed from out of the Christ. 'Spirit,' is obviously and truly the Holy Spirit…”

TERTULLIAN

DE ORATIONE

“On Prayer” By Alexander Souter, 1919
Latin Text by Ernest Evans, 1953

Chapter 25


"...We read also of Daniel's practice, [Daniel 6:10] which followed, you may be sure, the teaching of Israel: we ought, like him, to pray not less than thrice a day, being debtors to the three, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit..."


CYPRIAN

DE ORATIONE DOMINICA

“On The Lord's Prayer” by T. H. Bindley, 1914

Chapter 34.


“Now in the offering of prayer we find that the Three Children with Daniel, being strong in faith and victors even in captivity, observed the third, sixth, and ninth hours, [Daniel 6:10] in as it were a symbol of the Trinity which would be revealed in these last times. For the progress of the first hour to the third shows the perfected number of the Trinity; likewise from the fourth to the sixth declares another Trinity; and when the period from the seventh to the ninth is completed, the perfect Trinity is numbered through a triad of hours each. These spaces of hours were long ago fixed upon by the worshippers of God, who observed them as the appointed and lawful times for prayer. After-events have made it manifest that from of old these [Page 67] were types, inasmuch as righteous men formerly prayed thus. For at the third hour, the Holy Spirit descended upon the disciples and fulfilled the gracious promise of the Lord. Likewise at the sixth hour Peter, going up to the house-top, was instructed by the sign as well as by the voice of God bidding him to admit all to the grace of salvation, when previously he was doubtful whether Gentiles ought to be cleansed. And from the sixth to the ninth hour the Lord, being crucified, washed away our sins in His own Blood; and that He might redeem and quicken us, He then perfected His victory by His Passion.”


Hippolytus of Rome

The Apostolic Tradition

Translated by Kevin Edgecome

Chapter 41, Sections 5-9


"...If you are at home, pray at the third hour and praise God. If you are elsewhere at that time, pray in your heart to God. 6 For in this hour Christ was seen nailed to the wood. And thus in the Old Testament the Law instructed that the shewbread be offered at the third hour as a symbol of the Body and Blood of Christ. And the sacrifice of the irrational lamb was a symbol of the perfect Lamb. For Christ is the Shepherd, and he is also the bread which descended from heaven. 7 Pray also at the sixth hour. Because when Christ was attached to the wood of the cross, the daylight ceased and became darkness. Thus you should pray a powerful prayer at this hour, imitating the cry of him who prayed and all creation was made dark for the unbelieving Jews. 8 Pray also at the ninth hour a great prayer with great praise, imitating the souls of the righteous who do not lie, who glorify God who remembered his saints and sent his Word to them to enlighten them. 9 For in that hour Christ was pierced in his side, pouring out water and blood, and the rest of the time of the day, he gave light until evening. This way he made the dawn of another day at the beginning of his sleep, fulfilling the type of his resurrection..."

Fulgentius

“Responsio contra Arianos,”

Objectio 10, Responsio 10.

(Source : Your post: Fulgentius, Against the Arians; Translated by Thomas Hartwell Horne. A summary of biblical geography and antiquities, 1821, p. 234, Daniel section from another source.)

https://forums.carm.org/threads/tho...search-on-1-john-5-7.5539/page-71#post-440345

"...Which also the blessed martyr Cyprian, in his epistle De Unitate Ecclesiae (Unity of the Church), confesseth, saying, “Who so breaketh the peace of Christ, and concord, acteth against Christ: whoso gathereth elsewhere beside the Church, scattereth.” And that he might shew, that the Church of the one God is one, he inserted these testimonies, immediately from the scriptures: “The Lord said, 'I and the Father are one.' And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it is written, 'And these three are one.'” In the book on the Lord’s Prayer AS WELL, to show that the Trinity is of one divinity and does not have any separateness among itself, he mentioned Daniel [Daniel 6:10] and the three boys who would say a prayer every three hours. Thus, by the course of three hours and the service of one prayer, he evidently showed that the Trinity is one God..."
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Actually Cyprian does spin Scripturally unreferenced allegory in the very same chapter (chapter 6) about Noah's Ark, and also in the preceding context (chapter 5) about the sun and rays, trees and roots, springs, streams and dams, etc. Neither of these two allegories are preceded or followed by a Scripture reference or quotation - specifically applied to - these specific allegories.

All this is very complex and seems to have no relationship to your claim of an invisible allegory in Unity of the Church. If you want to try to make the analogy, you are welcome to try :).

Lots of people equate three with the Trinity in a variety of modes, and they tell you what they are doing. Really has nothing to do with Cyprian's clear reference to the heavenly witnesses.

Even Fulgentius, who supports strongly the Cyprian usage of the heavenly witnesses, is not very important, except for those who want to look backwards from hundreds of years later.

The simple fact is that the Cyprian reference must be the heavenly witnesses, or else he would be writing as a fool. His readers would immediately see that he was incompetent with scripture (if there was only the earthly.)

Nothing said hundreds of years later has any influence on the basics. That is why Armstong and Pieper were so strong.

Henry Thomas Armstrong
"a certain mystical interpretation which he (Cyprian) has not given or alluded to, of a verse which he has not quoted!"

Same thing with Potamius writing to Athanasius and all four uses extant. What people might conjecture about Potamius hundreds of years later, or 1650 years later, really changes nothing. The heavenly witnesses was in his Bible and he was referencing the verse again and again.

And I mention Potamius because we run into the same absurdity in interpretation, where again there really is no question as to his usage. He gives a similar basics as Cyprian, yet not the full verse.

The fact that neither of them are referencing the spirit, the water and the blood really ends the discussion. Except for those spinning themselves around in circles.
 
Last edited:
This below is a real Strawman!

Created in modern times:

Knittel on invisible allegory p. 21-24
(Forster summary is above, Sander touches on this in German)

New Criticisms on the Celebrated Text: 1 John V. 7. "For There are Three that Bear Record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and These Three are One." A Synodical Lecture (1829)
Franz Anton Knittel
https://books.google.com/books?id=QH5CAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA24
[...]
"In short, in every passage which he cites as allegorical proof, he first quotes the Text literally, and then states what it signifies mystically. If an example be wanting, observe how he quotes and explains Canticles vi. 8; 15 John xix.
23, 24; 16 Joshua xi. 18 ;17 &c."

https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...bpgE13J-4R0d0_TDmYSkFkXHb7rst6yvj-4#post-8108

Fact = Cyprian allegorizes in De Unitate.

Fact = Most of the time Cyprian in De Unitate quotes a Scripture, and then gives the application of the Scripture as allegory.

Fact = Sometimes Cyprian in De Unitate does not quote a Scripture first, or at all, for the allegory (examples in previous posts).

Fact = Sometimes Cyprian in De Unitate does not quote a Scripture first, or at all, or expound the meaning fully for an allegory.

Fact = Sometimes Cyprian in De Unitate does not quote a Scripture first, or at all, or expound the meaning fully for an allegory but instead a fuller explanation with Scripture references can be found in Cyprians other writings.

Fact = Sometimes Cyprian in De Unitate does not quote a Scripture first, or at all, or expound the meaning fully for an allegory but instead a fuller explanation with Scripture references can be found in other writers near in time or further out in time like Tertullian, Facundus, and Fulgentius etc.

Fact = More evidence exists in the early writers that Cyprian at De Unitate 6:5 did allegorize 1 John 5:7-8 (cf. Facundus + Fulgentius).

Clement of Alexandria 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 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 allegorized 1 John 5:8 (three things, the body, the soul, the spirit as servants of their Masters, Father, Son, HS) contemporary with (if it was genuine) Cyprian in Africa (Catena Sel. Ps. 122).
Cyprian himself allegorized Daniel 6 and NT verses (of three hours and three cycles of the Trinity, the Father, Son, HS) himself in Africa (De Orat. 34)
Fulgentius 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 says explicitly 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 is not without precedent, from times much closer than ours (or Knittel, Horne etc) to interpret Cyprian's prefacing 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.

Fact = No evidence exists in the early writers that Cyprian at De Unitate 6:5 did not allegorize 1 John 5:7-8.

Fact = No evidence exists in the early writers that everyone in or near his time knew or thought Cyprian at De Unitate 6:5 did not allegorize 1 John 5:7-8.
 
Last edited:

TC Calvinist

Active member
This insane thread has now reached 75 pages, and so far there is absolutely nothing that alters the reality that this "comma" is an insertion that John didn't write. We've gotten a lot of side issues dealing with Latin.

This is what happens when you have no Greek evidence at all, but your a priori mandates you swear allegiance to a translation by a bunch of baby sprinkling Calvinists (amusing largely because the loudest voices on this issue scream hysterical about infant baptism).
 

Conan

Active member
I have enjoyed the Latin part. I am convinced Cyprian did not have the extra words even in a Latin Bible. But even if he did, the overwhelming evidence is against anyway. Only KJVOnlyist and old fashioned Roman Catholics desperately hold on to the extra words from the Latin.
 

TC Calvinist

Active member
I have enjoyed the Latin part. I am convinced Cyprian did not have the extra words even in a Latin Bible. But even if he did, the overwhelming evidence is against anyway. Only KJVOnlyist and old fashioned Roman Catholics desperately hold on to the extra words from the Latin.

Well, you have one individual who is clearly well-versed in Latin and another one who tries to fake the fact he knows nothing about it by insisting that the data supports his a priori for the English Bible. Cyprian no more quoted the key phrase than did the man in the moon, and even if he did, it simply doesn't matter. Cyprian, along with every other Church Father who engaged in polemics, added words to Scripture and quoted things that as far as they knew were in their own Bibles (local text) but not written by the original author. Had they not, there probably wouldn't be a Vulgate, but the Latin Church Fathers bounced all over the place.
 
Well, you have one individual who is clearly well-versed in Latin and another one who tries to fake the fact he knows nothing about it by insisting that the data supports his a priori for the English Bible. Cyprian no more quoted the key phrase than did the man in the moon, and even if he did, it simply doesn't matter. Cyprian, along with every other Church Father who engaged in polemics, added words to Scripture and quoted things that as far as they knew were in their own Bibles (local text) but not written by the original author. Had they not, there probably wouldn't be a Vulgate, but the Latin Church Fathers bounced all over the place.

Add to that, the copyists of these WORKS THEMSELVES, (of the various Latin Father's) thinking they were obliged to correct (or disguise or omit) within these works anything they found out of sink with THEIR current (later or localised) versions of the Latin Bible, thus it gets even more complicated. That's where some of the great varieties of the Comma (i.e. "are one in Jesus Christ" or "are one in us" or "and the Spirit" minus "the Holy", or "and it is the Holy Spirit that gives witness" Speculum variant, or "and the Holy Spirit" with "the Holy" etc etc etc) not just in Bible manuscripts themselves but in the COPIES of the Latin ECW.

These localised texts were made in isolation and therefore most probably did not know about the other readings. It's a quagmire of variants of variants within variants.
 
Last edited:
To Avery.

If Fulgentius points to De Oratione Dominica 34 as the fuller explanation of De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate 6.5 then Fulgentius is definitely saying Cyprian allegorised, because De Oratione Dominica 34 is symbolic (sacramental) in nature (as De Unitate chapters 6 and 7 are).
 
Last edited:

TC Calvinist

Active member
Add to that, the copyists of these WORKS THEMSELVES, (of the various Latin Father's) thinking they were obliged to correct (or disguise or omit) within these works anything they found out of sink with THEIR current (later or localised) versions of the Latin Bible, thus it gets even more complicated. That's where some of the great varieties of the Comma (i.e. "are one in Jesus Christ" or "are one in us" or "and the Spirit" minus "the Holy", or "and it is the Holy Spirit that gives witness" Speculum variant, or "and the Holy Spirit" with "the Holy" etc etc etc) not just in Bible manuscripts themselves but in the COPIES of the Latin ECW.

These localised texts were made in isolation and therefore most probably did not know about the other readings. It's a quagmire of variants of variants within variants.

This gets back to a point I've made all too many times. It is a legitimate criticism (Colwell offered it as did Aland, and Robinson has stated it as well) of the eclectic text position that it provides no believable history of the text but is largely theory. The problem for the AV cult is that their position is even more nonsensical than the eclectic text folks are, but they seem oblivious to this reality. That's why they cover themselves by insulting (generic) you at the first opportunity to attempt to change the subject from their non-historical text view to what a rat you personally are (in their view).

The cold hard reality is that our beloved AV defender here doesn't care about textual criticism, doesn't care about Greek grammar, doesn't even care about really making a whole lot of sense. What the AV defender cares about is winning the argument to soothe their seared consciences with the cold, hard fact that their position is held together by nothing but a few authors they quote (usually out of context) and a bunch of insults.

There is ZERO evidence that Cyprian knew Greek. Zero. None. Quoting authors who claim he did doesn't alter reality. Saying that a lot of people in his day were bilingual doesn't prove it, either. To prove it, you have to prove that Cyprian himself was bilingual, not that some people in Cyprian's day were bilingual. (And then, of course, you have to explain how if he was so erudite in Greek why he failed to notice this nonsensical "grammatical problem" in 1 John 5:7 that is supposed to be a magical find for, well, people who don't read the language. This reaching to make a point by non-Greek readers quoting irresponsible Greek sources is so ludicrous that not even they actually believe that nonsense. They just want to win the point and soothe their insecurities).

As far as the Latin, we are left with reality. The reality is that Cyprian adds to the known text throughout his writings. Now to be fair to the bishop, it is entirely possible that he is accurately quoting passages that have already been glossed in Latin in his works, that he is not the one to blame for a particular quotation. But this hardly commends his work as any to be cited for some sort of "pure" passage, too. What's amusing is the logical fallacy inherent in asserting that somehow if Cyprian did quote the heavenly witness portion of 1 John 5, it somehow proves originality. It would establish conclusively an earlier date for the Latin corruption, but it wouldn't accomplish anything else. Thing is, there is simply no reason to make such gratuitous assumptions, which is why every single advocate (sans FHA Scrivener) who believes (and that's all it is, a belief that something proves something else) Cyprian quoted this passage begins his approach with the assumption of the originality of the passage and some level of superiority of the AV text, neither of which can be assumed a priori.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
I am convinced Cyprian did not have the extra words even in a Latin Bible. But even if he did, the overwhelming evidence is against anyway.

You should then come up with a theory as to how and when the heavenly witnesses were added.
Who, when, why, where?

And how did a non-original text manage to fix the Greek solecism in Latin-Greek translation? And how did it supply a wonderful heavenly and earthly paralrllism, both of which were supposedly missing in the original text. And how did it fix up various internals, like fixing the v. 6 and 8 wooden redundancy? And supplying the witness of God of verse 9.

All rather amazing for a supposed margin note brought into the text.
Without any evidence for the two-step.
 

TC Calvinist

Active member
You should then come up with a theory as to how and when the heavenly witnesses were added.
Who, when, why, where?

Your insistence upon making impossible demands of others while refusing to propose counterfactuals does not mean the rest of us simply default to accepting your position. Reality has never functioned thusly.

So...you tell us now if John wrote this passage - who, when, why, and where did it fall out.

Not "I think," but rather actual documented facts, the kind you defiantly demand of others but carefully exclude yourself.



And how did a non-original text manage to fix the Greek solecism in Latin-Greek translation?

A reminder the objector reads neither language to make this irresponsible (and wrong) claim.


And how did it supply a wonderful heavenly and earthly paralrllism, both of which were supposedly missing in the original text.

You assuming an imaginary parallel exists doesn't mean one actually exists.

And how did it fix up various internals, like fixing the v. 6 and 8 wooden redundancy? And supplying the witness of God of verse 9.

Your entire argument here is based upon what you wish happened, not what you can prove happened - while you simultaneously insist everyone else prove his or her case. (You may think the readers do not see this - but we all do).


All rather amazing for a supposed margin note brought into the text.
Without any evidence for the two-step.

All of the evidence - as in 100% of the evidence - points to the simple fact this began in Latin and was later imported into Greek. The idea that because nobody can give you an explicit name of whom precisely executed this - any more than you can give the name of the several someones that apparently excised it - doesn't mean we cannot explain the evidence as it exists. Now you can go on pretending nobody has explained this to you, but such behavior simply validates the fact that even you know your position is untenable.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
If Fulgentius points to De Oratione Dominica 34 as the fuller explanation of De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate 6.5 then Fulgentius is definitely saying Cyprian allegorised, because De Oratione Dominica 34 is symbolic (sacramental) in nature (as De Unitate chapters 6 and 7 are).

No mention of spirit, water and blood.

Not in Cyprian.
Ergo, no invisible allegory.

Not even in Fulgentius.
 
Top