Diodorus book on John's Epistle (and some BVDB stuff)

Steven Avery

Administrator
History

The Suida Byzantine encyclopedia (Medieval Greek:Σοῦδα, translit. Soûda; Latin: Suidae Lexicon)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suda
(note that Wikipedia has two different ideas about Suida being a name of the author)

And it is an interesting question to check the manuscript, the availability of which is likely discussed at the Ada Adler (1878-1946) edition, 1928–1938: Suidae Lexicon. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner. 5 vols. Note: this edition is in my area at Bard College.
http://www.worldcat.org/title/suidae-lexicon/oclc/600720191
And this review by H. Stuart Jones helps describe the meticulous accuracy of the edition.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...8-unbound-46/584DB358E775B5100FDBB920CAC29402
And the online editions are here:
https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/work?id=olbp69034
Including a very nice 1564 printed edition
https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/010823467

in the 900s is quoting from:

Theodorus Anagnostes (c. 500 AD), (Greek: Θεόδωρος Ἀναγνώστης, Theodoros Anagnostes)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodorus_Lector

an historian also known as Theodorus Lector,

Theodorus Lector, reader of the church of Constantinople. He composed in two books a tripartite history out of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, extant in MS. at Venice. It was copied by Leo Allatius, but not published. Valesius used his MS. in his edition of those authors.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wace/biodict.html?term=Theodorus+Lector

This note would indicate that the MS. in Venice or the copy by Leo Allatius (1586-1669) would give a more primary source, and that the edition of Valesius (1603-1676) could alternately be checked, although that would be less helpful. The big catch, of course would be if the MS. in Venice could be consulted. Apparently it is complete for those books, his later history is the one that is said to be fragmentary.

and Theodorus lists the books of:

Diodorus of Tarsus (c. 380) (Greek Διόδωρος ὁ Ταρσεύς; died c. 390)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diodorus_of_Tarsus

586 Diodorus monachus primum suit, Juliani el Valentis temporibus, postea vero episcopus Tarsi Ciliciae. Scripsit hic libros complures, ut testatur Theodorus Lector in Historia ecclesiastica. Quorum hi sunt tituli : ... In Epistolam Joannis evangelistae , de hoc quod unus est Deus in Trinitate.

είς τήν Επιστολήν Ιωάννου τού Ευαγγελιστού - περί τού είς Θεός έν Τριάδι

Diodorus, a monk ... in the time of Julian of Valens, bishop of Tarsus in Cilicia ... wrote a number of books ... according to Theodore Lector in the History of the Church. Which are titled... (many listed)
In the evangelist John's epistle, concerning that God is one in Trinity.
- Google smoothed - have done more completely

Patrologiæ cursus completus: seu, Bibliotheca ..., Volume 86, Part 1 (1865)
https://books.google.com/books?id=ZD73u4Fcn_EC&pg=PA215
Diodorus 1.jpg

Johns Epistle.jpg

Eis ten Epistolen Ioannou tou Euaggelistou peri tou eis Theos en Triadi. - (Ben David)
είς τήν Επιστολήν Ιωάννου τού Ευαγγελιστού - περί τού είς Θεός έν Τριάδι

Now checking ...
Suidas various printings
Is this part extant directly in Theodorus
Add the history - Dorhout, Brownlee, Burgess, Ben David et al and any contra harumphs
Best transcription of the Suidas and Theodorus Greek
(Suidas was in Greek and translated to Latin)
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Some have separated these as two separate books.

A New History of Ecclesiastical Writers:: Containing an Account of the Authors of the Several Books of the Old and New Testament; of the Lives and Writings of the Primitive Fathers; an Abridgment and Catalogue of Their Works; Their Various Editions, and Censures Determining the Genuine and Spurious. Together with a Judgment Upon Their Style and Doctrine. Also, a Compendious History of the Councils; with Chronological Tables of the Whole, Volumes 1-2 (1693)
Louis Ellies Du Pin
https://books.google.com/books?id=FL8sAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA188

Du Pin.jpg

Suidae Lexicon, Græce & Latine (1705)
https://archive.org/stream/suidaelexicongr01suid#page/594/mode/2up
In Epiitolam Joannis Euangelistae. De co, quod iit unus Deus in Trinitate. -

Gentleman's Magazine (1805)
http://books.google.com/books?id=Ta4UAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA407

Charles Dunster (1750-1816)
https://books.google.com/books?id=7mtIAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA231
is likely the Country-Clergyman

Classical Journal (1813)
A Country-Clergyman
http://books.google.com/books?id=lAUMAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA95

Gentlemans Mag 1805.jpg

In the footnote is discussed Lardner's idea that this might be two distinct writings.

* Lardner, (Vol. iv. 493.,) in his account of Diodorus Bishop of Tarsus, from Suidas, has chosen to stop short after the word Ευαγγελιστού. it may be said, he considered the περί τού είς Θεός έν Τριάδι., not as a description of St, John's Epistle, but as the subject of a separate commentary, or tract. This might be so. But in noticing his commentary on “the difference between theory and allegory,” which is placed next after that on the Book of Proverbs, he well argues, it “might therefore have been a dissertation subjoined to it.” Now the same supposition is no less obvious in this case ; and it would involve the conclusion, above inferred, that Diodorus had seen a copy of St. John’s first Epistle, which contained the 7th verse of Chanter v.

Classical Journal (1813)
https://books.google.com/books?id=U2kSAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA183

We are told of a book now lost, which appears to have been a commentary on the 1st Epistle of St. John, and contained an explication or defence of the Trinity. This might have afforded a slight degree of preponderance to the balance in favor of 1 John, v. 7- were there no other text in the epistle whence the doctrine could be elicited; but unfortunately, in the 4th century, the Fathers generally made use of the mystical interpretation of the eighth verse. The question then will he most properly decided by analogy ; and I shall propose the following questions.
1. Did the Fathers ever make use of the mystical interpretation of the earthly witnesses mentioned, 1 John, v. 8. ?
2. Is the seventh verse ever quoted in plain and express terms by any Fathers who lived in the five first centuries ? 3 Or is it read without variation m the MSS. of such writers, nearly or entirely in the same state in which it now stands in common editions of the New- Testament.
This is all part of a long attempt to explain Diodorus which is dependent on the absurdity of accusing the Cyprian reference of being allegorical, which continues on p. 313

... and Diodorus of Tarsus ought not to have been produced as an evidence in the case, because the work is lost. ...
Dorhout - original not online, at NYPL, Chicago, London, Wales and Europe - would be great to have the heavenly witnesses dissertation in England

Ben David (John Jones) - small note, applies it to Theodorus rather than Diodorus

Christian Advocate (1825)
William Craig Brownlee (1784-1860)
https://books.google.com/books?id=_tk2AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA260

In the year 1768, a work was published at Utrecht, by Ambrose Dorhout, entitled “ Animadversiones in loca selecta, V. T.” To this eminent scholar we are indebted for a new Greek authority, which had escaped the attention of all the writers in the Porsonian controversy: and which was first quoted in England by Dr. Burgess, very lately. It is that of Diodorus, bishop of Tarsus, of the fourth century: and the instructor of Chrysostom. The following is the quotation from Dorhout’s Dissert. De 1 John, v. 7. "But let us pass to a document which is above all exception: We have asserted that the Greek writers did cite this text. We have a distinguished passage which will evince to the eyes of every man not blinded by prejudice, that the prologue of St. Jerome reports correctly, which affirms, that the Greeks read this text of the heavenly witnesses in their manuscripts. Suidas (in voce Diodorus, &c.) relates out of Theodorus, the Lector’s church history, that Diodorus, the Greek monk, who lived in the days of the emperors Julian, &c., and who was afterwards bishop of Tarsus, wrote various pieces: among these the following: Works on the whole of the Old Testament, viz. Genesis, Exodus, &c. Also on the Evangelists; on the Acts of the Apostles, and είς τήν Επιστολήν Ιωάννου τού Ευαγγελιστού - περί τού είς Θεός έν Τριάδι. And also on the Epistle of John concerning that passage which treats of the one God in the Trinity, &c.” “ it appears to me clearer than the light,” as Dorhout adds, “ that this refers to the 7th verse.” For there is no other passage in the Epistle to which it can be referred.*

• See more fully in Burgess, p. xxxv. Note.

(note: I noted once years back that Brownlee or the C.A. printer actually omits one letter)
A Vindication of 1 John, v. 7. from the Objections of M. Griesbach: in which is given a new view of the external evidence, with Greek authorities for the authenticity of the verse, etc. With a facsimile (1823)
Thomas Burgess
https://books.google.com/books?id=fvZhAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA28
p. 28-29

M. Dorhout thinks it omni exceptione majus. ...Now whether what he wrote on the unity in Trinity was part of the comment on the Epistle, or was a discourse arising out of it, it has every appearance of being founded on the seventh verse of the fifth chapter.
On p. 42, Burgess gives his perspective (which can be strengthened even more, and he fudges the clear Jerome authorship of the Vulgate Prologue) of the corroborative nature of the various Greek evidences.)

The probability, which the language of Maximus, Athanasius, Diodorus, Basil, and Dionysius of Alexandria, affords that their copies of St. John’s Epistle contained the contested verse, is greatly augmented by the certainty that the author of the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles had the verse in his copy ..
(The rest from Burgess is in Brownlee. Burgess then mentions the Ambrose Dorhout extracts in the back
https://books.google.com/books?id=fvZhAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA157
and goes next into Dionysius of Alexandria.)

Orme (contra) (1829)
http://books.google.com/books?id=S_UDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA578

... Diodorus, according to Theodorus Anagnosta, and quoted by Suidas. Mark the roundabout way in which we are furnished with his testimony; and mark still farther what it is. Why this Diodorus, who it seems was the Preceptor of Chrysostom, wrote on the 1st Epistle of John, and on “Unity in the Trinity;” from which the Bishop infers 1 John v. 7. was in his Greek copy of the New Testament! There is really no arguing with this kind of evidence, even with the authority of Dorhout to bolster it up.

Roger Pearse gives a similar response.

1 John 5:7 in the fourth century? Theodore, Diodorus, the Suda, and Byzantine punctuation
https://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog...-diodorus-the-suda-and-byzantine-punctuation/
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Here is some boorish writing from the JW Matt on the Anti-Avery BVDB forum:
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...enticity-of-1-john-5-7-t6020-s410.html#p81578

Matt apparently thinks that commas only have one use, yet commas can be used for a number or reasons, e.g. appositive as in "Paul, the Apostle, to the Gentiles". Punctuation is often added afterwards, and even if it was not, is subject to the context and grammar.

Keep in mind that JWs can make all sorts of errors on commas, like when they misplace the comma on Luke 23:43 for doctrinal purposes.

Luke 23:43 (AV)
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Matt and the JWs mangle the verse to:
NWT - And he said to him: “Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise.”+

And Matt does not even think about elements like the unlikeliness of having only one Epistle book referenced, and that right next to the theme for which it is most famous. :). It is Ockham time!

The simple, logical, contextual explanation is that the Latin translation of the Greek in the reference materials, as well as the meaning of the Greek, for other Greek scholars (like Burgess & Bengalis) is that the commas have little effect on the meaning as we understand the Greek. Didorius wrote a book on John the Evangelist's Epistle concerning the One God in Three. Thus, afaik the Latin translations of the Suda have not separated the books into two books.

It is similar to this one book:

(Taken from Matt at the link above)
Κατὰ Ἰουδαίων,
Against the Jews,
Περὶ νεκρῶν ἀναστάσεως,
About the Resurrection of the Dead,

Where Matt errs and makes it into two books likely because of his comma confusion. Again, context helps, the NT shows us how the understanding of the resurrection of the dead is a primary, #1, element of Jewish confusion and error.

There is above a similar situation with his book on Proverbs, and Theory and Allegory, pointed out by Charles Dunster. (Not Frederick Nolan.)

Again Matt has:

Εἰς τὰς Παροιμίας,
On the Proverbs,
Τίς διαφορὰ θεωρίας καὶ ἀλληγορίας,
What is the Difference between Exposition and Allegory,

When this is very likely one book.

Thus we see that Matt went to a lot of effort to support the heavenly witnesses side of the Diodorus books!

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

(Acknowledging some help above on the techie parts.)

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

Anyway, maybe some day Matt will work on the really significant issues.
Here are a few.

1) the solecism in the short text

does he try to get around
2) Cyprian referencing the heavenly witneses

3) Jerome as the author of the Vulgate Prologue

4) Council of Carthage 484 AD showing that the heavenly witnesses was in the Latin Bibles all over the Mediteanean, on all doctrinal suasions. This corroborates Tertullian and Cyprian and other early evidences, and the Old Latin into the Vulgate.

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

Matt comes up with little tidbits that generally add up to nothing, and avoids the big, major issues.

Here is an example.

On the Vulgate Prologue Matt offered a slightly different word, with no change of meaning. Fair enough. It was an interesting techie try that changed nothing.

Now he tries to go into the Erasmus mode of Jerome perhaps corrupting scripture. Is Matt going to use that theory for Jerome actually adding the verse, the implication from Erasmus? Who knows. His writing is so tedious that you never get a clear, crisp theory of anything. (Eusebius being another perfect example of his tedious writing that goes nowhere.)

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

More on the Suda:

Matt lists all the books from the Greek and can see how many prepositions have a substantive article as in the case we are discussing. How many? uh uh uh None, oh, no other cases like the one we are discussing in the entire paragraph/list of books. My, well, that does indicate something particular about the single case, doesn't it?

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

Found another one where Matt again blunders, splitting one book to two (I bypassed it earlier because it was not NT)

Κατὰ Πλάτωνος περὶ θεοῦ καὶ θεῶν,
Against Plato on God and the Gods,
Περὶ φύσεως καὶ ὕλης, ἐν ᾧ, τί τὸ δίκαιόν ἐστι,
On Nature and Matter, in which is “What is the Just,”

What is the Just is a Platonic theme.

It looks like there are more, but the point is clear, Matt is clueless as to the book layouts from the Suda.

We can thank him for demolishing his own position.

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

Please keep in mind that this is just an auxiliary evidence, one of many that relate to the Greek ms. side. And unless the writings of Diodorus are discovered, unlikely to be provable. That is why the whiny boorish writing of Matt about "desperate", yada yada is just a reflection of his scholastic dishonety. Anyway, let's see if can tackle some of the biggies honestly.

=====================
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Matt tried again. He failed to address ... anything substantive.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...enticity-of-1-john-5-7-t6020-s410.html#p81579

The Plato entry disproves his idea that capital letters blah blah.
(A common feature of language, now Matt is confused on both capitals and commas.)

Matt, these are connected (missed by Roger Pearse, who has the background to see the connection):

Κατὰ Πλάτωνος περὶ θεοῦ καὶ θεῶν,
Against Plato on God and the Gods,
Περὶ φύσεως καὶ ὕλης, ἐν ᾧ, τί τὸ δίκαιόν ἐστι,
On Nature and Matter, in which is “What is the Just,”

Very similar to

Εἰς τὴν ἐπιστολὴν Ἰωάννου τοῦ Εὐαγγελιστοῦ,
On the Epistle of John the Evangelist,
Περὶ τοῦ, εἷς θεὸς ἐν τριάδι,
About the One God in Three,

With the flow being that much more clear with the About or Concerning.

Against the Jews, About the Resurrection of the Dead, works similarly.

Again, you are writing in a boorish and foolish manner, and defeating your own positions. (Granted, weak writing like yours does help defenders to understand the issues in a more robust manner.)

Why not deal with the big issues?
This is an interesting auxiliary one, the four above are super-evidences.

Thomas Burgess made a good point about the connection, that it can be direct, one publication, or one tract/pub flowing into the next.

A Vindication of 1 John, v. 7. from the Objections of M. Griesbach: in which is given a new view of the external evidence, with Greek authorities for the authenticity of the verse, etc. With a facsimile (1823)
Thomas Burgess
https://books.google.com/books?id=fvZhAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA28
p. 28-29
M. Dorhout, in his Amimadversiones ... thinks it omni exceptione majus. ...Now whether what he wrote on the unity in Trinity was part of the comment on the Epistle, or was a discourse arising out of it, it has every appearance of being founded on the seventh verse of the fifth chapter.... Now whether what he wrote on the unity in Trinity was part of the comment on the Epistle, or was a discourse arising out of it, it has every appearance of being founded on the seventh verse of the fifth chapter.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Euthymius is a bit smarter than Matt - and again proves our point.
Capitalization and commas are secondary, if that ... first is context.

Euthymius
περί τοῦ εἷς θεὸς ἐν τριάδι — forget the capitalization and commas (which would not have been present originally); but the meaning remains clear, and in perfect accord with Greek grammar: "Concerning the [topic] 'one God in Trinity'".
What is there not to understand about a genitive article following περί in such a context?

If the topic is simply "One God in Three" that would generally be the title. - No about or concerning needed.

"Concerning the .. " is the linkage phrase.

On the Epistle of John the Evangelist,
Concerning the one God in Three.

Thank you BVDB for all your help in strengthening this Diodorus evidence.

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

March 28. 2021
Bill Brown added one of his embarrassing whiny insult posts.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...enticity-of-1-john-5-7-t6020-s410.html#p81581

Maybe some of the posters there will tell him how he writes like a petulant little child.
He really is sick, as I have pointed out earlier.
Bill Brown should remember that the Lord Jesus can take him any day, and he is clearly unprepared, simply a pretend believer/Christian.

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

Working on more on the Diodorus heavenly witnesses reference.
Stay tuned.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Matt seems to have realized that his work actually strengthened the evidence from Diodorus.
We have seen how the book titles from the Suda clearly support the connection of the two phrases, that this was common in the books list.


So now we have:
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...enticity-of-1-john-5-7-t6020-s410.html#p81588

Now he has switched gears, and simply claimed it was not rock-solid empirical.
With that I would agree, we do not know the ins and outs of the one/two books involved.

They definitely give a sense of relating to the heavenly witnesses, but not in the absolute sense of references like Jerome's Vulgate Prologue. (With Jerome being familiar with early Greek and Latin manuscripts.)

Now, if Matt has integrity, he would start explaining his position on each of the four super-evidences above.

I do thank Matt for, unwittingly, strongly strengthening the Diodorus evidence. (Allusion.)
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Now Matt has a 3 Greek mss with dots. He does not even show how the dots are used in the mss. in general, so it is more waste of time.

Especially since, as Burgess astutely pointed out, two consecutive works can be connected.
M. Dorhout thinks it omni exceptione majus. ...Now whether what he wrote on the unity in Trinity was part of the comment on the Epistle, or was a discourse arising out of it, it has every appearance of being founded on the seventh verse of the fifth chapter.

So Matt, when will you start responding on the major issues? Apparently never. You like to try to nibble at the edges with poorly thought out, and terribly expressed, arguments, augmented with boorishness. Usually on the lesser issues.

When you did discuss the Vulgate Prologue, you came up with two big zeros. One, a different spelling/word. Decent scholarship that went absolutely nowhere. You were trying so hard . And now trying to somehow accuse Jerome of corruption, the embarrassing position of Erasmus when he could not handle the truf.

Do you think Jerome was the main fellow in the rogue's gallery of five or ten claimed creators and inserters of the heavenly witnesses?
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Matt continues obtusely.

1) Burgess shows you that even if this is separate writings, they are likely connected.

2) what Greek and Latin mss. were available to Ambrosius Dorhout?

3) how consistent are the Greek mss you show in expressing the book connections?
If they are inconsistent, then they are basically worthless, being hundreds of years after the Suda.

You never actually address such questions. Your typical myopia.

And I am well aware of the need for correction for Roger Pearse, who did not look closely at the Suda book set-up.
(You helped show the real situation with the interlinear.)
Roger has the typical problem of those influenced in textcrit, he publishes some of Ben David, thank you, and then calls it "nonsense", when it is actually overall a very strong evidence review.

And I have no idea what you are talking about in retro-changing the PBF. This has been a growing page, one post building on another, so I think you just made that up. Every post from #4 on has been recent, the last week, the post you highlighted, #4, was created 3/26 and only modified on 3/26. I think you are losing the thread. Try some herb tea.

Try to deal with some of the really fundamental Heavenly Witnesses evidences and issues!

Steven
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
One problem with Matt is that he ignores the overall context.

Only one listing about an epistle, the Epistle of John the Evangelist (1 John). Why the special status?
Followed by the linkage phrase Concerning/About ... the One God in Three.
Which is only pointing us to focus on one very special verse ... the heavenly witnesses.

Matt himself made it easy to see that two books linked together from Diodorus is common in the Suda.
(So now he ignores all that :).)

A solid evidence of connection. Whether one book, or one book leading into the next.
(Evidence, not proof.)
Proof is what you have in the major evidences that Matt ignores. He really has no overall stance against our beautiful verse. Maybe the JW org warps one's thinking facilities.

1 John 5:7 (AV)
For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.


In some honest part of his heart, hard to find, Matt knows this is the word of God, scripture.
His JW org even printed Bibles with it for decades.

Why does Matt always miss the larger context?

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

And the very sick Bill Brown prattles on with more irrelevancy.
He likes to alternate sick posts, with some that are almost struggling for coherency.
The bottom line .. he is sick and needs help. He is not ready to meet the Lord Jesus Christ.
We can pray for him, try to help, offer him consolation and counsel.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Matt continues to undermine his own case. I will put these in lines.
"He wrote (διάφορα) a variety of things, [...] They are as follows:
Interpretations on [...]
On the Four Gospels,
On the Acts of the Apostles,
On the Epistle of John the Evangelist,
Concerning the One God in Three..."

Earlier:

Εἰς τὴν ἐπιστολὴν Ἰωάννου τοῦ Εὐαγγελιστοῦ,
On the Epistle of John the Evangelist,
Περὶ τοῦ, εἷς θεὸς ἐν τριάδι,
About the One God in Three,

Not "The One God in Three" .. but "Concerning .." a linkage word.
(Matt also put in a comma., against his own claims. On the second one he changed it to a period.)

The heavenly witnesses is about the one God in three (true whether you are Oneness, Trinitarian or whatever Ben David is considered.)
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Matt
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...enticity-of-1-john-5-7-t6020-s420.html#p81631

Matthew can not even relate to the simple fact About or Concerning are generally linkage phrases.
(Whether one text or two.)
He is rather hopeless.

Beyond that, he does not have the integrity to discuss the real big issues., except in his selected points of no significance.

Anyway, maybe some day Matt will work on the really significant issues.
Here are a few.

1) the solecism in the short text

does he try to get around
2) Cyprian referencing the heavenly witneses

3) Jerome as the author of the Vulgate Prologue

4) Council of Carthage 484 AD showing that the heavenly witnesses was in the Latin Bibles all over the Mediteanean, on all doctrinal suasions. This corroborates Tertullian and Cyprian and other early evidences, and the Old Latin into the Vulgate.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Please keep in mind that this is just an auxiliary evidence, one of many that relate to the Greek ms. side. And unless the writings of Diodorus are discovered, unlikely to be provable. That is why the whiny boorish writing of Matt about "desperate", yada yada is just a reflection of his scholastic dishonesty. Anyway, let's see if can tackle some of the biggies honestly.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Bill Brown with more sickness
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...enticity-of-1-john-5-7-t6020-s420.html#p81642

Why respond to a reactive trolling sick non-Christian writer? (Or, if you prefer, a poseur, a faux pretend Christian.)
Who really says .. nothing.

Rarely, if ever, does he actually make a decent scholarly point.
His petty, vulgar, commentary totally masks anything half-decent he might offer.

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

And Matt with more inability to work with context:
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...enticity-of-1-john-5-7-t6020-s420.html#p81650

Steven why would any "native" English speaker CAPITALISE a "linking" or connecting phrase in the middle of a sentence?

1) No passed-down Greek punctuation is definite.
Hundreds of years of transmission, texts in two languages.
And often punctuation can be used in more than one way. We saw you were clueless about comma usage.

English titles often capitalize various words, e.g. those that begin important phrases. You basic point is simply wrong.

And why are you now switching to asking about English? You jump around like a Mexican jumping bean.

2) If they are two distinct works, one flowing into another, with a period, then it is not the middle of the sentence.

You constantly flunk Logic 101.

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


And rather than discuss the big evidences, like the Vulgate Prologue, and Cyprian and the Council of Carthage and the solecism ..... (or even the Athanasius Disputation) ...

You throw out side things like Laodecia, sans context. You are really a disaster. If you think that has a point, why not try to express yourself sensibly?

You LACK ALL CONTEXT for the heavenly witnesses real discussions.

btw, Charles Vincent Dolman uses the Pericope Auldterae (surely in Jerome's Vulgate) as an example of how the Fuldensis ms. lost the heavenly witnesses. (Both had scribes who preferred omission.)

But it is not improbable that the “Codex Fuldensis” has undergone changes not approved by St. Jerome. For instance, it omits the passage in St. John’s Gospel about the sinful woman, which we know St. Jerome comprised in his Vulgate; whilst it contains the Epistle to the Laodiceans, of which he says: “ Ab omnibus exploditur.”

Michael Marlowe
"1. In chapter 5 of his book De Viris Illustribus Jerome writes, “Legunt quidam et ad Laodicenses, sed ab omnibus exploditur.” (Certain persons read also an epistle to the Laodiceans, but it is rejected by all.)"

Is Matt so dumb that he is trying to make an argument to downplay the Codex Fuldensis because it includes the Epistle to Laodecia.? Yes, I would believe so, but, per his trickster style, he does not say it outright. Similar to his attacking Jerome.

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

The astute posters on BVDB, if there are any, must be embarrassed by these two.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Another worthless post from Matt, where he misrepresents what I wrote above.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...enticity-of-1-john-5-7-t6020-s430.html#p81674

Followed by an interesting post just in from puxanto., who makes a grammatical argument that the two phrases likely are connected.
And, apparently having consulted with folks with some Greek savvy, he finishes astutely:

In conclusion, this does not mean, however, that the work of Diodorus (if it exists) speaks or has references to the paragraph, it could not be certain that it is very strange that it passes from the genitive to the nominative so

He is right.
You can not be certain, but it remains a nice evidence.

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

Matt, you would do better to try to make arguments against the key and main evidences.
 
Last edited:
Top