Iasion

Greetings,

Ah, thanks for that clue.


Yup,
the usual apologist fare - a faithful farrago of mis-representations, exaggerations and outright falsehoods :

Tertullian does NOT quote the verse

Cyprian, quotes "these 3 are 1" states Comma NOT as a quote.

Athanasis - Contra Arium p. 109, De Incarnatione
I searched both books - NO mention of Comma I can see.

4th C. Jerome - does NOT mention the Comma

Council of Carthage
The Council of 419 does NOT quote the Comma

John Cassian (435 AD)
I looked, but can find no reference.

Prologue to the Canonical Epistles (Preserved in Codex Fuldensis). Attributed to Jerome.
Argues the Comma has been omitted by unfaithful scribes. Does NOT have Comma in text.


Iasion

Steven Avery

Hi Spin, we can go into Vigilus and Clarus more tomorrow :-)

Apparently you consider Henry Wace from the 19th century as the authoritative source and even missed the identification of Clarus as the Spanish Bishop opposing Priscillian a century before Vigilus.

Hmmm... hot-shot researcher Spin here.

======

Here is the information repeated from Cyprian.
My conjecture is that you never even read the Marty Shue article or any
history of this discussion but as another rah-rah man you jump to junk.
Another member of the Skeptic Protection Association.

Please take off you tendentious glasses and try to read
this simply without your political and psycho-babble filters.

(And others as well, as I only expect spin from Spin.)

http://kjbbn.net/response_to_daniel_...n%205%207.html
The Johannine Comma by Martin A. Shue
Cyprian, On the Unity of the Church, point 6

“Dicit dominus, Ego et pater unum sumus (John x. 30), et iterum de
Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est,
Et tres unum sunt.”

(The Lord says, "I and the Father are One," and again, of
the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written:
"And the three are One.").

This Latin reading is important when you compare it to the
Old Latin reading of 1 John 5:7;

“Quoniam tres sunt, gui testimonium dant in coelo:
Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt.”

Cyprian clearly says that it is written of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost -- ”And the three are One.” His Latin matches the Old Latin reading identically with the exception of ‘hi’. Again, it is important to note that Cyprian said “it is written” when making his remarks ... If Cyprian was not quoting 1 John 5:7 the question must be asked and answered: What was he quoting?

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

Now you have to put on some dark glasses to claim this as not evidence for the Comma.

Peter Kirby includes it in e-catena.

Iasion trips all over himself in babble-speak ...
Cyprian, quotes "these 3 are 1" states Comma NOT as a quote.

Now of course this is not a "quote" of the full verse of 1 John 5:7.
Simply a very strong reference, evidence par excellence that Cyprian
was aware of and referencing the Johannine Comma as scripture.

It is amazing the hand-waving that is done to avoid acknowledging
the clear and obvious.

btw, not too long ago I was on the opposite side of this argument. Claiming the Johannine Comma reference was not scripture. The Cyprian reference was one evidence that shook me, causing me to rethink my position. Clearly this was the heavenly witnesses verse.

Hmmm...

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

Steven Avery

Hi Iasion,

For about the fourth time, I will ask you to comment on the Theophilus posts. Remember you claimed Theophilus as a 2nd century evidence against the Johannine Comma, so that would be quite significant. So I did some research and presented it and did not see any way that he would be an evidence against the Comma. Meanwhile, you have put in a few posts, yet you haven't even had the courtesy to say ..

"thanks .. I dunno.. will check".

Now on this last post I could discuss almost every point you try to make. Two for now. I just have a curiousity about how you write.

I'm curious, specifically where did you look ?

Iasion, I don't know if you are confused, a fish out of water or deliberately deceptive or what. Here are the references that I gave...

http://www.jesus-is-lord.co.za/1john572.htm
http://www.ovrlnd.com/Bible/casefor1john57.html
"And These Three Are One"
A Case For the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7-8 Rooted in Biblical Exegesis

An assembly was called at Carthage where I John 5:7-8 was insisted upon by Eugenius, the spokesman for the African bishops, as he confessed his faith and the faith of his brethren:

. . .and in order that we may teach until now, more clearly than light, that the Holy Spirit is now one divinity with the Father and the Son.It is proved by the evangelist John, for he says, 'there are three which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.[45]

[45]Victor of Vitensis, Historia persecutionis Africanae Prov, 2.82 [3.11]; CSEL 7, 60.Translated by Michael Maynard in A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8(Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995), 43.

Latin, "Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus," lines up perfectly with the Old Latin reading.

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

Victor Vitensis (485 AD) - Historia persecutionis Africanae Provinciae
-- records Council of Carthage (484 AD, hundreds of Bishops in attendance) -- word of Eugenius

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

It doesn't help to attack a straw man. I would be the first to acknowledge that this often gets misdated on the web. However you should respond to my posts where I try to present things in decency and order. Why are you attacking a reference (Council of Carthage of 419) that was not part of my presentation ?

Are you claiming any problem with this reference ?

It clearly is very significant because it represents a whole Council, where a verse looked upon as spurious would be a lightning rod. Its usage by Eugenius is very strong evidence of wide-spread acceptance throughout at least the Latin church.

Of course there was no Chinese wall between Latin and Greek in those centuries. Perhaps we can get into that more later.

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

spin

Of course you can go into it tomorrow. By the time we get to the era of Priscillian, we are in a relatively late period for comment on text. Why don't you accept the fact that the comma is late as all but sad fundamentalist apologists do? Ah, willfulness is such a motivation.

And Metzger for whom you have a wanton aversion, happily refers to Priscillian.

He also establishes a trajectory which excludes Greek sources altogether until the 1200s. Interesting that the Greek fathers didn't know it while fighting in the Arian war. Also interesting that Jerome must have left it out, if your view is correct. So, you can wallow about in Latin sources but that Latin limitation helps to support Metzger's analysis.

Now, imagine you established the earliest use of the comma, how would you say which came first, the presence in 1 Jn or in the earliest Latin use itself?

As usual praxeus is the blind attempting to lead the less sight challenged astray.

The king of archaic sources complains about someone else using old sources. Well, if it'll make you feel less alone. However, as is often the case, things are more complex than praxeus would like to portray them. Perhaps he would like to say how he can tell which works were supposed to have been written by this Idacius Clarus, not by Vigilius of Thapsus.


spin

Steven Avery

Spin, you do not realize that much of the anti-Comma emphasis is on much later periods? Look even at your attempt with Metzger, how it is concentrated on the later periods.

Try to be consistent. Folks against the Johannine Comma are always trying to make a big to-do about a relative Greek silence 1000 years later, before Erasmus. Yet here we see Spin trying to lessen the import of a wealth of evidence a millenium before. Please.

Incidentally the wisdom and textual common sense that led to our historic reformation Bible was incredible. With all the brouhaha about Erasmus, the Prologue to the Vulgate actually was one of the factors that was a major influence on him. Erasmus understood the importance of such an individual early church reference while our pseudo-scholars here like Spin can't even grasp the conceptual basics.

So we see the Comma was widely accepted in the 4th and 5th century and even referenced in the 3rd by Cyprian (maybe even you can see that). This makes all "added to the text" theories very, very dicey. (Including way after the early MSS, the original claim of Iasion).

In the Spin-Iasion theories, then ..

When, where, by whom was the Comma added (supposedly) ?
How did the Comma gain wide acceptance so quickly ?

The burden shifts, ie. if you try to have a sensible theory of the Bible text.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin Why don't you accept the fact that the comma is late as all but sad fundamentalist apologists do?

Spin, you do realize that your various attempts to string together some type of argument are continually deep-sixed by your petty vitriol.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin Metzger... establishes a trajectory which excludes Greek sources altogether until the 1200s.

Since this appeal has been countered in the Jesse Boyd article it is embarrassing for you to come into the thread now and start anew.

More importantly, the whole idea of Greek sources independent of Latin sources implies a non-existent Chinese wall. Many folks read both languages, some wrote in both, and some wrote in one and their works were translated to another, some lived where both languages were dominant.

Jerome and John Cassian are two examples of men who were deeply in both environments. Perhaps Roger or another may be able to supply more on the interplay of the languages but it is clear that there was no Chinese wall. We discussed this recently on the textcrit forum.

Thus you are involved in a very tricky type of special pleading since there is so much evidence of early church use and knowledge of the Comma.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin Interesting that the Greek fathers didn't know it while fighting in the Arian war.

More special pleading. The Comma was referenced in the Arian wars, as you can tell by the names of a work like "Against Arius". Therefore you do tricky language parsing. The moment one sees such parsing.. you know there is sleight-of-hand at play. Let us set up a special category just for this argument.

Also the type of argument you are trying to make is dicey in other ways, since it is an argument from silence. We don't have the full body of each persons writings, many times they didn't write much about a particular book and a case can be made of Greek references that demonstrate knowledge of the the Johannine Comma in that period (eg. Boyd discusses Augustine).

However the whole argument is minor anyway, it is a special technique of Metzger (followed by some others) to set up categories of convience, special pleading. What is sad is that supposed skeptics are so gullible. We saw this in the Pericope Adultera thread as well, where Metzger's student Ehrman was the one promoting deceptive footwork.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...ight=Johannine

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin Also interesting that Jerome must have left it out, if your view is correct.

Your logic is very strange. I specifically addressed this on this thread. Unpack this into a real position and I will respond.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin So, you can wallow about in Latin sources but that Latin limitation helps to support Metzger's analysis.

See above. This is one of the dumbest comments you have made, where you piggy-back on a special pleading and then add typical Spin junque.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin Now, imagine you established the earliest use of the comma, how would you say which came first, the presence in 1 Jn or in the earliest Latin use itself?

Your are losing it. The earliest good reference we have to the Comma is by Cyprian, and he references that it was scripture. You can always come up with weird theories, what do I care ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin As usual praxeus is the blind attempting to lead the less sight challenged astray.

Spin, I am finding your invective a weird combination of sad and funny and revolting. Do you realize how petty and small you come across ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin The king of archaic sources complains about someone else using old sources.

Translation ... oops. I goofed on Clarius. I need a cover story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin Well, if it'll make you feel less alone. However, as is often the case, things are more complex than praxeus would like to portray them. Perhaps he would like to say how he can tell which works were supposed to have been written by this Idacius Clarus, not by Vigilius of Thapsus.

Well I did say I would get back to you tomorrow. And it is even possible that Clarus is not a clearly independent reference, rather a dual reference. Neither of us knows for sure at the moment. A variety of web sources are vague or disagree.

However sometimes you can tell. If the Clarus reference is in a writing related to Priscillian that would strongly indicate an independent source.

Spin, you seem to forget that I included over 15 references through the 6th century (one dup, btw, Contra Arius) in that time period with an indication that there might be questions on a couple. And I didn't list the later centuries, which add a bunch more.

So the one we are discussing, Clarus, is helpful as an addendum to his more well-known adversary Priscillian. (Two sides of the doctrinal coin.) And it is 4th century, among the earlier references. A moderate-important reference.

We shall see if it shows up as a substantiated independent source.

Cyprian, Council of Carthage, Vulgate Prologue and Priscillian and the Speculum, all for very different reasons, are among the most important early church references. (Manuscript evidence is largely the Old Latin and Vulgate lines, with a variety of additional support).

It seems the rest of the church references are significant largely for the large number and the context (e.g. against Arius) and the lack of controversy in usages in the fourth century on.

Also various other interesting aspects (eg. Cassius was involved in the Greek and Latin churches).

Some other ECW references have their own nuance, such as Gregory of Nazianzus commenting on the grammatical difficulty, or the Tertullian debatable allusion, or the Fulgentius discussion of the Cyprian comments, or the Augustine discussion.

And of course there are conceptual issues as well.

The grammar problem is one where folks like myself see a strong evidence for the Johannine Comma (where there is no problem). Yet because you work with a presupposition of a bumbling, errant text you might view the same evidence in reverse. As a slave to your anti-Bible presuppositions you will always try to fabricate an errant text. This is the common trick here eg. Jack and JW and Api. However, I since I defend the pure word of God, the efforts of the skeptic to propagate an errant, cobbled version of blunders is quite transparent.

Psalm 12:6-7
The words of the LORD are pure words:
as silver tried in a furnace of earth,
purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,
thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

I'm interested in the fact that it is not original to the text. You can crap on as to how late.

I'm consistent. You unfortunately are so punchdrunk, you don't seem to think about the barbs you try to throw.

Please yourself. You are so out of touch with what you need to do. You are trying to apologize and you don't know what you need to apologize about.

It doesn't matter when the comma was added to the text, though it would seem that the Greek is exceptionally late. I especially like the marginal additions of the comma in the four texts that Metzger notes.

Now, if I were you responding to your "rhetoric", I would be bleeding, but you seem to be unable to moderate yourself. I haven't called you a pseudo-scholar or anything of that level. I get the idea you have nothing better to do than to try to insult people. It would be nice if you could actually put some sort of argument together rather than nitpick your way through your stay here.

This "so" is unsupported rubbish. Please think before you type, will you? Your statement "widely accepted" is blatantly wrong. Why exaggerate your statements to such an extent as to make yourself look bad?

You are unable to read the text of Cyprian for what it says. Your bias is just too strong for you to do anything to overcome it.

In the Spin-Iasion theories, then ..

When, where, by whom was the Comma added (supposedly) ?
How did the Comma gain wide acceptance so quickly ?[/quote]
When the Greeks don't seem to have known about it at all, I don't see that you are making any sense.

Gosh, is there any content in this sentence of yours? I can't find any.

It's ironic, isn't it? You and your insults. You just don't don't like being called on it.

You have this habit of claiming what you haven't shown.

This is backdoor special pleading, admitting the basic case about the lack of the comma in Greek sources. Sad, praxeus.

Then don't you think it's exceptionally strange that the comma wasn't paraded high and low? Of course not. You accept that it wasn't, hinting that you are aware you have no argument here either.

But all this is just you finding things to complain about, because you can't wheedle the comma back into the text.

Come on praxeus, stop the vain musing and try to be constructive.

You have failed dysmally to show this claim, unless of course you redefine what you mean by early church to suit whatever conclusion you need.

Wouldn't it be nice if saying so could make it so?

Sorry, which works exactly are you referring to which provide the comma rather than something that could be construed as a vague reference to the general idea or some other part of 1 Jn? Could you please be specific regarding the actual comma in the early fourth century?

It doesn't take tricky parsing for you to insinuate the comma where it is not.

You are so ironic, praxeus, auto-ironic.

If an early manuscript hasn't got the text, then that's a testimony that it wasn't there. Oh, of course you can get hypothetical about the possibility that they wrote about the comma in non-extant works. Hey, now that's real useful, praxeus. We work from what is in the earliest texts and there's no comma.

Please elucidate. I think this is contentless crap, but do convince me. As is, you are making unsupported noise.

Again reduced to insult. I suppose you have no lead in your pencil at all.

I didn't follow this thread. But if it is anything like your flow of conjecture and innuendo here, I haven't missed much, have I?

It's not just my logic though, praxeus, is it? It's any logic.

1 Jn 5:7 quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant
1 Jn 5:8 Spiritus et aqua et sanguis et tres unum sunt

Jerome doesn't supply the comma for your convenience.

This is great in that it shows no interaction with what you are trying to respond to. But any response is good enough for you, isn't it?

That's what you have failed to show, but you have trouble understand the issue that a reference to 1 Jn 5:8's et tres unum sunt is not a reference to the comma.

When the weird theory actually deals with the text, you should care, but the text isn't what interests you: it's your preconceived conclusions.

It's good to see that you can recycle my ideas here, when you have insulted most people you have had communications wsith... oh, but, of course, you don't realise that you are insulting people.

Nice try, but your archaic sources are those sorry early modern apologies for the comma that you keep hauling out of mothballs.

Ultimately it's not important is it, praxeus. It's just too late to be relevant as a witness, especially when you have no methodology for saying which came first the Priscillian material which became a source for the comma or the comma which became a source for the Priscillian material.

Gosh, sixth century! That's impressive. We need the early fourth century, when the comma would have been useful in the Greek Arian war, not late in that century, when someone had enough time to think to crank it out in Latin.

Wrong end of the 4th century and in the wrong cultural context.

Just out of curiosity have you got any earlyish texts which actually cite the comma up your sleave, or have you only got these, well, it sounds a little like the comma references. Cyprian for example doesn't cite the comma.

As I said your stuff seems to come from the wrong end of the fourth century. Perhaps you're withholding more useful references.

All we need is a Greek reference when an occasion to use it was rife, ie during the Arian dispute.

But what do you consider Fulgentius has to say that convincingly shows that the comma existed?

Oh, yes, the conceptual issues. V6 clearly talks about the water, the blood and the spirit. V8 clearly talks about the water, the blood and the spirit. And v7 in the earliest sources say that these three testify. There is no conceptual hook to hang the overt stuff about the trinity in the comma. It doesn't fit where it has been placed. It is just vaguely related to the original text which flows fine without it the comma and awkwardly with it, related in that it talks about three things being one.

Would you like to make your strongest case for the grammatical problem -- as I don't see any great problem --, and I'll respond to it.

You can assume whatever presuppositions you want me to have. You're just shooting the air in doing so.

This of course explains how you have no hope of understanding the text in a communicatively useful way. You assume that you are dealing with the pure word of god, which makes you fall under the burden of your infinite presupposition level: you just cannot deal openly and honestly with the text. How can you when you are already committed to an approach you are unable to abandon when the evidence asks you to? The usual approach is to apply enough bandaids that you can't even see the problems.

Still straining under the burden of your necessary presuppositions. Anyone who doesn't hold your beliefs is necessarily wrong in your vision, therefore the skeptic, who by scientific necessity isn't committed to any view, you cast as opposing your view and as you are trying to defend the word of god as you see it, your enemy is trying to propagate errant whatever you want to call it.

You are a victim of your own presuppositions. You'll read whatever you need to read into what Cyprian says, into what Tertullian says, into what Fulgentius says as long as you have a response to the attacks you face regarding the word of god. Apologetics is the field of rearguard self-defence when you hold untenable positions.


spin

Julian

praxeus is bobbing and weaving, trying to avoid dealing with what is obvious to everyone else. He wants his cake and eat it, too. On one hand he rejects the Western text family when it disagrees with TR, but holds it up as an early witness when it agrees with him. Well, it really doesn't work that way.

The Western text family diverges early from the Greek MSS and frequently contains longer readings and lengthy additions. A few Greek witnesses exemplify the Western tradition, most famously D (05). What we see here regarding the Comma is that there is NO SIGNIFICANT GREEK SUPPORT for this reading. The early witnesses to the passage were writing in Latin and must therefore be relegated to witness section for the Western tradition. And that's how simple it is. Prax et al. cannot use a Latin source as a witness to the Greek tradition. Here are the witnesses as far as I have them available to me electronically.

Greek reading without the comma:

μαρτυροῦντες, 8 τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα

Witnesses:
א A B K L P (Ψ 1844 1852 μαρτυροῦνσιν) 048 049 056 0142 33 81 88text 104 181 322 323 326 330 436 451 614 630 945 1067 1175 1241 1243 1292 1409 1505 1611 1735 1739 1846 1877 1881 2127 2138 2298 2344 2412 2464 2492 2495 Byz Lect (l884 βάπτισμα for αἷμα) it^ar vg^ww vg^st syr^p syr^h cop^sa cop^bo arm^mss eth geo slav Irenaeus Clement^lat Tertullian Ippolytus (Origen^lat) Rebaptism Faustinus Hilary Lucifer Athanasius Basil Gregory-Nazianzus Ambrose Didymus Epiphanius Chrysostom Jerome Augustine (Cyril) Ps-Dionysius^vid Quodvultdeus Facundus (John-Damascus)

Greek reading with the comma:

μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατὴρ ὁ λόγος καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν. 8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα

Witnesses:
(61 629 omit the following καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν) (88^v.r.) 221^v.r. (429^v.r.) (636^v.r.) (918) 2318 l^AD vg^cl arm^mss ς

Latin reading with comma:

testimonium dicunt (oppure dant) in terra, spiritus (oppure spiritus et) aqua et sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt in Christo Iesu. 8 et tres sunt, qui testimonium dicunt in caelo, pater, verbum et spiritus

Witnesses:
(itc itdem itdiv omit in Christo Iesu) it^l it^m it^p (it^q omit et hi tres unum sunt in Christo Iesu) vg^mss (Cyprian) (Ps-Cyprian) (Priscillian) Ps-Vigilius Cassian Speculum Varimadum Fulgentius Ps-Athanasius Ansbert mss^{according to Victor-Vita}

Julian

Julian

[MOD]
Okay, everybody needs to keep a civil tongue, some of the language is pushing the boundaries. Please tone it down and deal with the issue, not the person presenting it.

Julian
Moderator, BC&H
[/MOD]

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Let me see if there is any substance in this post from spin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin I haven't called you a pseudo-scholar

Ok, that was out of place. For one thing you really haven't been involved in the scholarship, the term is applicable more for the false textcrit concepts and paradigms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin Your statement "widely accepted" is blatantly wrong.

The Council of Carthage, the Latin text lines, the dozens of extant references over many centuries, the Speculum and more. Maybe "widely accepted" in the Latin church would be more precise however it is amply documented that it was widely accepted. Most verses do not have that type of support referencing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin You are unable to read the text of Cyprian for what it says. Your bias is just too strong for you to do anything to overcome it.

Amazing.

(The Lord says, "I and the Father are One," and again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One.").

I can accept somebody saying "this is not absolute proof of the Comma with Cyprian" .. but you have to blinded to deny it as very strong evidence, especially with the Latin text line word matching.

What do you think that says Spin, other than it is written (in scripture) of the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost - "And the three are One."

You think it was some sort of metaphorical combination of ethereal-nascent-quasi-trinitarian (or sabellian if you like) understandings that just happened to be very close to the Comma. Or do you think (like some) that this reference from Cyprian is what led to the Comma. The reverse-quoting theory.

.. below you use that theory for Priscillian ! . Amazing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus When, where, by whom was the Comma added (supposedly) ? How did the Comma gain wide acceptance so quickly ?...

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin Gosh, is there any content in this sentence of yours? I can't find any.

Simply asking you for a coherent theory for how the Comma got into the textline and referenced so widely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin admitting the basic case about the lack of the comma in Greek sources.

I have always agreed that the Comma largely fell out of the Greek text-line. The special pleading on "Greek fathers" of Metzger is a well-known trick.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin Then don't you think it's exceptionally strange that the comma wasn't paraded high and low?

When ? Where ? There are a couple of dozen extant references, who knows how many non-extant. Including one major Church Council. Have you compared that with other verses, especially coming from a lesser-referenced Epistle ?

There also is some hesitation on the verse. Many Trinitarians of the day would be concerned that the Comma could be seen in other ways .. such as Sabellian. We tend to put on modern glasses too easy and not really try to get the gist of the discussion and sense back then.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin If an early manuscript hasn't got the text, then that's a testimony that it wasn't there.

Very tricky, spin. The discussion was early church writers not manuscripts with 1 John. If an early church writer does not mention earth, water and blood, there is no particular reason to assume they have the verse without the Comma. Even if they do, it is only evidentiary, context is king. I have seen so far one valid homily-type writing where the Comma was missing. There probably are a handful but neither you nor Iasion has shown anything.

Iasion gave Theophilus as supposed early evidence and I asked four times for specifics, and nobody comes up with anything. No response, not even a "I dunno".

Your evidentiary standards are skewered.

For the Metzger/Ehrman categories of convenience and word-parsing on the Pericope Adultera thread. I linked it earlier. They do the same on 1 Timothy 3:16. They simply design the category to "fit" the evidence.. and they mold the evidence to try to fit the category. If you really are interested, I can get quotes and such, but I don't see sincerity in your request.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin Jerome doesn't supply the comma for your convenience.

Where are you quoting ? A Jerome epistle?. Have you read the Prologue to the Canonical epistles ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin you have no methodology for saying which came first the Priscillian material which became a source for the comma or the comma which became a source for the Priscillian material.

Are you really claiming that Prisicllian made a statement that quickly became scripture in the fifth century, referenced by writer after writer, and acknowledged as scripture at Carthage ? Priscillian the heretic ?

Wow... you really are completely haywire. That is why I asked you for a theory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin Cyprian for example doesn't cite the comma.

See above. You have to have real blinders for this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin But what do you consider Fulgentius has to say that convincingly shows that the comma existed?

Fulgentius, unlike you, recognized that Cyprian was referencing the same Comma in his Bible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin Oh, yes, the conceptual issues.

Actually I was thinking about your embrace of originals with grammatical errors. I know that you have no picture of the poetry and sense of the verses, so I didn't bother with that.

All I have time for now.
And probably all I have time for with you.
You can finish up, and I probably will let it lie there.

I have specific questions for Iasion -- unanswered.
Start with the Theophilus reference.

Shalom,
Steven

Amaleq13

How do you imagine this happened? Anti-trinitarians?