tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post8926718274702010001..comments2024-03-20T12:35:12.828-04:00Comments on The Text of the Gospels: The Comma JohanneumJames Snapp Jrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-26182533373429307472021-04-19T20:17:59.845-04:002021-04-19T20:17:59.845-04:00The NIrV translates John 5:8 as The Hoy Spirit, th...The NIrV translates John 5:8 as The Hoy Spirit, the Birth of Christ, and the Death of Christ!Daniel Buckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02600146498880358592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-20628899138973854012020-03-26T00:28:51.650-04:002020-03-26T00:28:51.650-04:00My apologies for a number of typos, it needed anot...My apologies for a number of typos, it needed another draft, the biggest error is a place where I say "Tertullian" rather than "Cyprian".<br /><br />"Let us also point out that the Tertullian section" - should be Cyprian section.Steven Averyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18019556495973817763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-12406976137535586582020-03-26T00:16:11.040-04:002020-03-26T00:16:11.040-04:00Plus, in your historical conjecture, let's loo...<br />Plus, in your historical conjecture, let's look at the steps involved.<br />(Something you, and others with similar theories, neglect to do.<br /><br />=============<br /><br />1) Cyprian has to do a unlikely, basically impossible, allegory.<br /><br />2) Another unknown individual has to create the beautiful, majestic heavenly witnesses verse by working with the Cyprian allegory. And he even changes Son to Word, perhaps to emulate John?<br /><br />3) Oh, in that creation, he has to add the earthly element to the previous spirit-water-blood aspect. <br /><br />4) Which he balances in pralellism with his beautiful heavenly witnesses, which he also invents.<br /><br />5) Then he pushes all this into the margin as a Bible note.<br /><br />6) Then the margin note jumps into the text by another scribal confusion.<br /><br />7) Then the scribes around town, and over the dale, accept this Latin verse! <br /><br />=============<br /><br />All of this was totally missed by the early church writers!<br /><br />Overall, we have to compare authenticity and various accident-forgery scenarios. If we do it sincerely and honestly, in Ockham style, we can say that the answer is clear -- AUTHENTIC! <br /><br />=============<br /><br />Steven Avery<br />Dutchess County, NY, USASteven Averyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18019556495973817763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-23223986424419713032020-03-26T00:15:50.430-04:002020-03-26T00:15:50.430-04:00Hi James,
On your interpolation theories, you co...Hi James, <br /><br />On your interpolation theories, you conjecture that the early Trinitarian allegory, supposedly of Cyprian, was intrinsically related to the varying orders of spirit, water and blood. Presumably having the 'spirit' in the 3rd spot would help in relating water to the Father, and blood to the Son, or something along that line. Yet, there is no evidence that Cyprian used that order. And in fact, by far the closest match would the Treatise on Re-Baptism, which has the order spirit-water-blood, contra your concept of the Cyprian text. This was at virtually the same time and locale/culture as Cyprian and was transmitted with his works. hmmmm... <br /><br />(Readers should note that there are two distinct transpositions that you reference, the order within the earthly witnesses, and the order of the heavenly and earthly witness triads.)<br /><br />Yet Cyprian is noted by Cyprian scholars to be always carefully quoting his scripture (Kenyon said he quotes "copiously and textually"). And he was not engaged in fanciful allegory and paraphrasing. <br /><br />And Cyprian wrote that it was WRITTEN of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit that these three are one. That must be the heavenly witnesses verse. The order of the earthly witnesses (about which you conjecture, contra the Re-Baptism evidence) would not really matter.<br /><br />Thus, those without a critical textual axe to grind have acknowledged Cyprian's usage of the section from his Bible having the heavenly witnesses. <br /><br />Three examples are Scrivener (ironically, a fierce opponent of the verse authenticity, Walter Thiele, and a truly wonderful section written by the Luther scholar Franz August Otto Pieper (1852-1931). Plus, I have never seen a Cyprian scholar come up with this allegorical mish-a-mash. Plus, the section itself was about the Unity of the Church, the context was not at all ontological / Christological. As they say, context is king, and it would truly be an allegory out of left field, even if Cyprian did that sort of thing. <br /><br />Let us also point out that the Tertullian section is augmented by his other usage in Jubaianus (Epistle 72) and has pre-corroberation from the similar "three are one" Tertullian reference in his writing contra Praxeas. And note that both Tertullian and Cyprian had skills in both Greek and Latin, and would likely have Bibles in both languages. <br /><br />There are also additional references in that Ante-Nicene period, such as the Origen Psalm scholium (Greek) and Hundredfold Martyrs (Ps-Cyprian) and Eusebius ad Marcellum (Greek). The mss. available to Jerome, Greek and Latin, would also go back to that period, or earlier, and his note in the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles is a powerful evidence as well, and is a fine match to the Eusebius avoidance of "three are one".<br /><br />All of this works strongly against your theory. <br /><br />And that is even before we get into additional elements like the Latin supposed interpolation miraculously fixing the Greek solecism! When back-translated. What an amazing help to the words of God!(In the omission theory, please allow that to be a sarcasm alert on our end of defending authenticity!)<br /><br />And we have 'Clunk the Interpolater' (my identification) amazingly using wording and style and parallelism that was 'more Johannine than John[. e.g. In referencing the Word, and the heaven and earth parallelism, as examples. Plus, Clunk fixed other problems in the supposed original Johannine writing, such as the lack of a connection of the "witness of God" in verse 9, and the wooden redundancy of verse 6 and 7, when only the earthly witnesses. <br /><br />===========<br />Steven Averyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18019556495973817763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-91608824105000592162020-03-25T19:25:20.339-04:002020-03-25T19:25:20.339-04:00Hi James,
Thanks!
The first point to make is t...Hi James, <br /><br />Thanks! <br /><br />The first point to make is that Daniel Wallace gives no reason for his late dating of ms. 629, and the 1300s dating is, I believe, well accepted. (So I see no reason to even mention his late dating, it is likely just an error.) <br /><br />And since the Lateran Council of 1215 AD gave the heavenly witnesses in Latin and Greek, there should be no surprise whatsoever about the 1300s ms. 629. It would be natural aspect of the restoration of the heavenly witnesses verse to the Greek understandings. <br /><br />During the medieval error, the more robust Latin writings had way over 100 different writers using the verse, and often discussing the doctrinal elements.<br /><br />Beyond that, both Joseph Bryennius (c. 1350-1430) and Manual Calecas (c. 1410) utilized the heavenly witnesses verse in their Greek writings, before Erasmus. <br /><br />And there was a similar dynamic in the Armenian restoration of the heavenly witnesses verse.<br /><br />And I am not sure why writers like Elijah Hixson (2020 blog paper) deliberately omit so much of the Greek background. An over-emphasis on extant Greek mss. is a good way to give a false impression of the evidence and history. <br /><br />As one example, the recent discovery of Eusebius ad Marcellum is very helpful in showing the doctrinal resistance to the heavenly witnesses. <br /><br />There are also diverse Greek notes that look at the unusual grammar (solecism) aspect, with the Nazianzen dialog through to the medieval era, including possibly Euthymius Zibabenus and definitely the Matthaei scholium. <br /><br />And then with Erasmus himself also having the note "torquebit grammaticos", referring to the Greek grammar problem in the earthly witnesses text.<br /><br />There is more than I could add, especially about Greek ECW references and the dual-language aspect, however I hope to switch shortly to your transposition and interpolation theories. <br /><br />Steven Avery <br />Dutchess County, NYSteven Averyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18019556495973817763noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-44950484950110662622017-08-14T12:39:56.000-04:002017-08-14T12:39:56.000-04:00[Note: the first form of this post, in its mentio...[Note: the first form of this post, in its mention of Henk de Jonge, said that he is dead; however I am glad to report that he is alive. The post has been corrected accordingly.]James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-27613396045717161752017-08-10T20:20:26.910-04:002017-08-10T20:20:26.910-04:00It's not accurate to say the the JC in either ...It's not accurate to say the the JC in either the traditional English Bible or the traditional Greek text is 'based on' a "few late Greek manuscripts." The evidence is very clear that Erasmus saw a single Greek manuscript, 61, which contained text for the Comma, and there is no reason to believe that the compilers of the Complutensiian GNT ever saw even one. The English printed version of the Comma is based on a single Greek manuscript, imperfectly copied by Erasmus and printed in his Greek NT, and subsequently edited by Stephanus with reference to the Complutensian. The sources behind both streams of the Textus Receptus are one-off translations of Latin manuscripts (Codex Complutensis being one of them). There is no history of the Comma being copied from one Greek manuscript into another. There has never been an attempt to produce a printed critical edition of the NT which included a Comma compiled from Greek manuscript sources. The chain of transmission is always short, and always starts with a Latin manuscript source. Daniel Buckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02600146498880358592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-41626880883761814612017-08-10T15:04:03.040-04:002017-08-10T15:04:03.040-04:00That Greek Orthodox "official" text (Ant...That Greek Orthodox "official" text (Antoniades 1904/1912) as originally printed had the Comma in <i>very small</i> and <i>italicized</i> type, indicating its absence from the original text of 1Jn. The Greek preface by Antoniades (p.7) clearly explains the issue (English translation by J. M. Rife in Colwell's <i>Prolegomena to the Study of the Lectionary Text,</i> p.61; emphasis added):<br /><br />"...the passage on the 'three witnesses' in I John 5:7,8. It did not appear possible to include this, either by the principles of this present [official Orthodox] edition or by way of exception, since it is <i>entirely unattested</i> in church texts, in the fathers and teachers of the Eastern Church, in the ancient versions, in the older MSS of the Slavic version, or even in the Latin, or in any known Greek MS written independently of this addition, which was introduced gradually into the Vulgate. It is retained [solely] upon the <i>opinion</i> of the Holy Synod."Maurice A. Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05685965674144539571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-85024847536581224102017-08-10T07:51:03.323-04:002017-08-10T07:51:03.323-04:00Still, it is interesting to note that the official...Still, it is interesting to note that the official text used by the Greek Orthodox Church includes the Johannine Comma.Kephahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00999385775493831638noreply@blogger.com