Toto

No one has made your integrity an issue.

post 172 says This was in response to a request for moderator action against you, praxeus, for your repeated claim about Iasion and fourth c. MSS. I deleted that request as off topic, but I pointed out that the readers could judge you for themselves. I made no evaluation myself there.

I can see now how you might have become confused, since you probably did not see the request that you be moderated.

But you have still not explained how the earliest evidences differs from the earliest MSS. Iasion did not say the earliest existing MSS pf John, and it was quite clear what he intended to say. Perhaps he could have been more precise. But this does not justify your dragging this non-issue out to this extent and inpugning everyone's honesty and/or competance.

And will you now admit that you forgot that Erasmus was a 16th century scholar, so "Greek MSS from the time of Erasmus" is the same as "16th century Greek MSS" ??

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

From the Iasion list, given as a 2nd-century evidence, ergo very signficant to the discussion. We can discuss 3rd century evidences after this one.

"evidence for 1 John WITHOUT the Comma"
[c] Theophilus

See the post above #204 for a discussion of Theophilus. Roger Pearse pointed out a problem of using lists without references and so far there does not seem to be any applicable reference for Theophilus.

So, is there going to be any attempt to justify the inclusion of Theophilus as an anti-Johannine-Comma reference or should the list simply be considered errant. And from that correction we can go on ? Are there other names that Iasion has put on that list that he would like to put on 'hold' until further checking or is he claiming the rest are accurate ?

Let us leave aside Cyprian and Tertullian for now. Even though the Marty Shue article is very clear and strong and even Peter Kirby has Cyprian on ecatena, and Terutllian is clearly debatable, we can accept for now that we disagree on those two and look at the other ECW claims and omissions of Iasion.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Toto

I'm getting a little tired of this. Here's the list from 174:I don't see any basic contradictions in what Iasion has written. I don't have a reference to his claim that there are no extant Greek MSS before the time of Erasmus, and if he said this, it might have been a mistake that he would have corrected if called to his attention.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

The issue is the Iasion post #195 lacking references.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...&postcount=195

And my post and supporting documentation - #140
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...&postcount=140

They make a fascinating contrast and study

We are seeing that the Iasion list is full of various types of errors on both sides. Below we are dealing with his claims of writers who Iasion claims are support against the Comma. (On another post I discussed some what that would mean .. it is in fact worth going into this more.)

On the list supposedly supporting the Johannine Comma virtually every 'factoid' is wrong (one is very debatable) all sorts of very salient evidence is deliberately omitted, important aspects (like the number and nature of references) are biased/rigged by omission.

Emphasis added ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iasion Funny how you ignored praxeus' list of authorities - which had numerous false claims in it

Specifics.

Iasion is asserting false claims at ..
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...&postcount=140

Without even saying what are supposedly "false claims".
Amazing.

(Clearly we disagree on Cyprian, however I gave it good support by referencing the excellent Marty Shue article with its full analysis. Peter Kirby has Cyprian on e-catena. Scrivener and Fuldensis and others have defended that reference, so any accusation of a 'false claim' is simply glasses, a nothing, itself a false accusation. At most, 'disputed' can be claimed, which I carefully pointed out. Similarly on Tertullian I indicated it was debatable. More so than Cyprian.)

So what are you claiming as "numerous false claims".
Specifics, or retract the accusation.

My post is full of both quotes and references, also discussion of context, and I have the quotes immediately available for many of the references. The rest I can likely get the quotes rather quickly.

In contrast, the Iasion list has nothing of ECW references ..
Roger correctly pointed out a wariness of such lists.
Iasion .. How can Roger "check facts" if you don't even give references ??
Amazing.

And when I took one of your major claims, Theophilus, and supplied what I could find (which does NOT support your claim) so far you have not even had the courtesy to give even a "thanks .. I'll look into it" reply.

Why not at least tell us - for the evidences you claim.
Where you have.

a) personally read supporting primary-source quotes ?
b) or secondary sources .. where ?
c) know where the references are found ?

If you can't do anything with (a) or (b) or (c) why not just tell us your sources. eg. such-and-such a website claiming to be an analysis from Bruce Metzger, or whatever.

btw, at least one of them appears legit, except that the framents from Clement of Alexander are 3rd century, not 2nd.
Are other church writer references legit ? Dunno.
That is why the references are needed.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Iasion

Greetings,

Thanks for your patient moderation here :-)

Just to clarify the MSS evidence the actual earliest MSS which we can examine today for 1 John 5 are the famous codexes from 4th century (e.g. Aleph and B). The contents of earlier MSS can be inferred from quotes such as the example of Cyprian.

See my chronological list above for the specific evidence. I will be expanding this list and presenting it side-by-side with praxeus' list. I encourage readers to check our two lists and compare for accuracy.

For reference:
The earliest Greek MSS of 1 John (both without 1 John 5) are :
p9 - 3rd C. - 1 John 4.11f, 14-17
p74 - 6th or 7th C. - epistles, 1 John 1.1, 6; 2.1f, 7, 13f, 18f, 25f; 3.1f, 8, 14, 19f; 4.1 ,6f, 12, 16f; 5.3f, 9f, 17;

(I am still looking into the versions such as Coptic etc.)


Iasion

Steven Avery

Then maybe you should be paying closer attention rather than playing skeptic protection association.

Post #57
No early Greek MSS has this passage. The first Greek MSS with it only appeared in the time of Erasmus

Post #148
5th C. on
* All Greek MSS WITHOUT the Comma (until Erasmus)

Challenged on #152
That is simply not true, although it would be a whole nother thread. Where do you get this stuff ?

(later #193 he spilled the beans and told us where, the NIV ! )

#163
There are NO greek MSS with the Comma until the time of Erasmus - this is a known fact.

Finally Iasion realized his error, and tried to hide it by repeating the error while contradicting it !

#174
NO Greek MSS has the Comma until the time of Erasmus - only 8 very late Greek MSS have the Comma out of 5300 or so -

And in 193 he tells us he got his error from the NIV
What a scholarly researcher !

And Iasion still claims there was no change, correction, contradiction !
"Praxeus astonishingly claims I am contradicting myself"

All this nonsense rather than simply acknowledge -
"I was wrong."
Again and again we run into this stuff.

=========

btw, if you think that 5300 Greek manuscripts have 1 John, as Iasion implied by citing the figure, you should be buying yet another bridge.

Also JW in the middle of his usual tawdry accusations of lying in #154
1) The extant manuscripts are few and Late [joke]all coming after Erasmus[/joke].

Iasion did eventually defacto "correct" the error.

While refusing to acknowledge that post 57, 148 and 163 were wrong. (Even #174 contradicts itself WITHIN one sentence.)

While claiming that there was no contradiction involved.
Amazing.

Iasion - "obfuscation first"

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Which is why way after the "early MSS" (Iasion's words, twice) will be properly interpreted as way after the 4th century. It is the clear understanding and implication.

Toto, you owe me an apology for attacking my integrity on this point on post #172

"it is clear that Iasion did not say that the Johannine comma was added in the fourth century, and the readers can draw their own conclusion about praxeus's integrity and/or debate tactics"

Ok, you semi-address this above. However not well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto No one has made your integrity an issue.

The quote does. You say

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto I pointed out that the readers could judge you for themselves. I made no evaluation myself there.

Of course you did. That was the purpose of the preface.
"it is clear that Iasion did not say..."
Not only is that not clear, I gave the most proper and sensible interpretation of his words, as Iasion now defacto acknowledges. And you strung this error of yours into the integrity accusation.

As an aside, when Iasion originally wrote those words about 'much later' he might even have been thinking middle ages. That is why I asked, and he said "early MSS" .. which has the natural implication of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which are frequently referred to as the "early MSS" and do have 1 John.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto I can see now how you might have become confused,

There was no confusion. You put together your strange agreement with Iasion with a discussion of my integrity. It is time for you to simply acknowledge that was wrong, and we can go on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto since you probably did not see the request that you be moderated.

I did not, but that does not assuage your juxtaposition.

Please it was "the early MSS" and those are fourth century (there are no applicable earlier papyri fragments). Don't beat a dead horse.

Toto, I asked him multiple times to be precise, and that is what led to his finally saying "early MSS". I did everything I could to get a straight answer from him. Now we find that he was using sources like the NIV for scholarship !

There has in fact been a lot of shenanigans on this thread of various types.

And I have been accused by Iasion and you. (and JW always puts out his general "lying" accusations as well). Iasion I expect, since he needed a lot of cover stories. However the moderators are not supposed to reach for nonsensical accusations like above. Perhaps you really need to review the thread.

Oh, please, Toto. The point was that Iasion had himself referenced manuscripts from BEFORE the 16th century. Unfortunately this last statement asking me to "admit" something that I have been well aware of and never remotely contradicted shows you remain almost clueless about the thread.

Shalom,
Steven

Iasion

Greetings,

I am happy to clarify :-)

There are no copies of the actual Comma in Greek MSS, until the 16th century. That is, specifically the Comma itself - although 4 of MSS have a 16th century addition of the Comma to a slightly earlier MSS.


I will expand my chronological list of evidence and include evidence FOR the Comma for comparison. I think I will start a new thread for this subject - as this is one of the most famous interpolations of all, and others may have input.

Meanwhile,
if anyone can provide some citations for the list praxeus' gave (which can be found all over the net on apologist sites) I would appreciate it.

So far, much of it is just plain wrong (e.g. Tertullian, Athanasius), misrepresented (e.g. Cyprian, Jerome), or so obscure they are only mentioned on web sites apologising for the Comma ! (e.g. Idacius Clarus, Vigilius Tapensis.)


Iasion


P.S. for reference:
This page or article seems to be the fountainhead of much of the apologist claims about the Comma such as praxeus has been preaching :
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible...7-exegesis.htm

spin

A little net trawling has revealed that "Idacius Clarus" is a name used by Vigilius Tapensis, so they are not separate witnesses *. (I do like the way that many of the apologetic sites misspell the name of the heretical Priscillian as "Priscillkian" as sad evidence of the unanalytical cut and paste anything to bolster the sinking ship approach.)

The problem now is to find the actual references and texts, because one needs to establish what the writer actually committed to paper. As Iasion has already shown much of the so-called early evidence in fact does not cite the comma at all and thus is not evidence at all. He has peeled this stuff back to the late fourth century, which shows that the comma has no real early support at all.

praxeus wrote:
and praxeus certainly has practised his obfuscation, misrepresenting the evidence for obvious tendentious reasons: he knows that the comma must be veracious; he can feel it in his bones. Too bad he has once again nothing tangible to offer for his feeling.

spin

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Please, not till after some response on Theophilus...

Iasion, explain to the forum ..

When you are trying to know what was in the Bible being used in the 4th and 5th century, what is the significance as to whether a church writer is well-known or 'obscure' ?

Also you may not realize the multiple names.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14556a.htm
Vigilius, the only known bishop, assisted at the assembly convoked at Carthage in 484 by King Huneric and was exiled by the latter with his colleagues. He is the author of several controversial works against the Arians and the Eutychians

And Idacius Clarus was the opponent of Prisillian and therefore is rather significant historically. You have two opposing sides referencing the Johannine Comma in the 4th century. And again you may have gotten tripped up by the name variation.

http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/e...tm/iv.v.xv.htm
the Spaniards being led by Ithacius Clarus, bishop of Sossuba (Ossonoba?) from before 379 to e. 388.

The Jesse Boyd article makes many good points and I was speaking to him the other day to seek to go over some questions but it is only one moderately-helpful source. Afaik he is not even active in the discussion today and it is by no means the 'fountainhead'.

Correction to post #213 -
"Scrivener and Fuldensis"
"Scrivener and Fulgentius"

Shalom,
Steven Avery.