Facebook - 2024 - Mike Ferrando and James Snapp on Ottobonianus and more

Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
This is a replica of GA 629, which is at the Vatican Library. It's the earliest Greek manuscript of First John in which the interpolation known as the Comma Johanneum appears. Notice the lack of articles - a clear indicator that the Greek text here has been retro-translated from Latin.

The MS (a.k.a. Ottobianus Greek 298) can be viewed directly at

DigiVatLib

digi.vatlib.it digi.vatlib.it
(Comma appears on fol. 105v).

1733663301953.png




James E Snapp Jr
Crewmate Larry,
<< Mr Snapp said the north African church and Spain had the comma for the first 500 years of the church age. >>
Hmm . . . do you recollect my statement, verbatim?
{Added:]
What I said is that the Comma originated in the Old Latin used in North Africa/Numidia, probably in the 300s, as an interpretive gloss of the transposed witnesses "water, blood, and spirit." By the time of the Council of Carthage in 484 (which turned out to be more of a consultation than a council) it was well-spread among the orthodox Latin-readers. Meanwhile in the Greek text of First John, the Comma was absent - because John did not write it.
The reason why you are having trouble defending your assumption is simple: it's not true. I.e., John never wrote the comma in his Greek in his first epistle.

Mike Ferrando
James E Snapp Jr
Absolute conjecture, of course. The Heavenly & Earthly Witnesses of 1 John 5 were already being written in Greek & Latin by bilingual fathers (as it already appeared in Priscillian's confession before the Church in 390 AD). Other works by Greek/Latin fathers, Eusebius of Vercelli (a personal friend of Athanasius) who wrote De Trinitate (the first 7 books). De Trinitate became the most used and well known anti-dote to Arian arguments in all Christendom.
Other works were also written in Greek, like Quaestiones Aliae (early 4th century) which has many obvious allusions in it to the Heavenly Witnesses. This work has always been part of the works of Athanasius, attested as his work by fathers and councils. Further, in the 17th century the Eastern Churches confession (in Greek) quotes the Quaestiones Aliae as the work of Athanasius.
One can also see allusions to the Heavenly witnesses in the liturgy of Chrysostom and in Chrysostoms sermons as a doxology.
So, no, the whole cloth fable of "only in Latin" and "only in North Africa" and "invented on the basis of Cyprian" is completely false and without any foundation in facts and/or evidence.
Produce some evidence??
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
James E Snapp Jr
Mike Ferrando ,
No one's saying the Comma was only in North Africa. I'm saying it originated there, in Latin, as an interpretive gloss on the transposed "water, blood, and spirit." (remove)


Mike Ferrando
James E Snapp Jr
the "water, blood, spirit" has nothing to do with the Heavenly Witnesses. Further Facundus destroys the whole assumption of yours, since he writes the full verse (Earthly Witnesses) as normal with "in earth" as it is usually seen in I John 5. Also, what this could very well be referring to is verse 6 where it reads in many Greek manuscripts and fathers "not in water only, but in water, blood, and spirit".
Corruption of verse 8 has nothing to do with the authenticity of verse 7 (Heavenly Witnesses).


Mike Ferrando
Seth Knorr
The list that Snapp keeps referring to is not accurate. The manuscripts in that list are for any part of I John. They are not all extent for the verses in question.
For I John 5:7-8
GA 048 is damaged and illegible.
GA 0296 is damaged and illegible.
GA 033 is illegible
GA 025 has only I John 5:2-3
That leaves us with the following Manuscripts extent for I John 5:7-8 for the first 8 centuries:
GA 01 Sinaiticus (4th century)
GA 03 Vaticanus (4th century)
GA 02 Alexandrinus (5th century)
Thus you can see the list is very misleading.
For a more correct and accurate listing of manuscripts that are extent for I John 5:7-8 see:
>>Kurt Aland, Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments: I. Die Katholischen Briefe Band 1: Das Material Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 1987), 163-166

Seth Knorr
Mike Ferrando Are you saying Muenster is wrong?
See:
http://nttranscripts.uni-muenster.de/AnaServer...
GA018
οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες
GA020
οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες
GA025
οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες
GA044
οτι τρεις μαρτυρουσιν
GA048
[οτι] [τρει]ς̣ ε̣ι̣σ̣ι̣ν̣ [οι] [μαρτυρ]ουν̣τ[ες]̣
Yes damaged, but not enough room for it to include it.
GA0296
οτ̣[ι] τρεις οι μ̣αρ̣τυρουντε̣[ς]
Basically intact. Clearly didn’t include it.

Mike Ferrando
Seth Knorr
Yes, I am saying that and so is Aland.
The problem is that scholars "assume" it the comma is omitted and then construct the text accordingly. Or simply assume. These scholars can be wrong, and have been for many centuries.
Others I have listed as damaged/illegible are just that, no need for the usual suspects to submit their "reconstructions".
Who did the transcription on the site?? Anyone who has an account. Really... you need to be more careful.
Here is the text given for 025 in Kurt Aland's 1987 vol 9 edition.
I John 5 has only verse 2, 3.
p. 2 from Aland's work. (image attached)
>>Kurt Aland, Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments: I. Die Katholischen Briefe Band 1: Das Material Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 1987), 163-166

May be an image of text

Eric Rowe
Mike Ferrando //Here is the text given for 025 in Kurt Aland's 1987 vol 9 edition.
I John 5 has only verse 2, 3.//
I don't think that's what that says. I think it says that it includes 1 John 1:1-3:19; 5 (as in all of chapter 5); and 2-3 John (as in all of 2-3 John).
Notice the "Joh." on the next line.
This means that the comma is probably a typo for a semi-colon. But I think that's the only way to make sense of that stray "Joh." as well as the period after the 3.
Edit: another way the crucial part might be read is "1 John 5:2 - 3 John", meaning all of 1 John 5 from v. 2 on to the end, continuing on through all of 2 John and 3 John.

Mike Ferrando
Eric Rowe
Yeah, I agree. There are various listings of what is in I John 5 extent. Some say verses 2-13, others indicate the entire chapter. So, this typo, maybe is trying to indicate the entire chapter? and should be followed by a semicolon? with the rest saying that it includes 2 & 3 John. It is just another error that needs to be nailed down. However, this came to me honestly as I hunt for information when a manuscript is not online. Thanks for your thoughts.

Mike Ferrando
Seth Knorr
Remember I said the 8 centuries
That list is deliberately deceptive.
You are mixing the manuscripts that are much later date.
GA 018 == 9th Century
GA 020 == 9th Century
GA 025 == 9th Century
GA 044 == 9th/10th Century
===
GA 048 is damaged and illegible.
GA 0296 is damaged and illegible.
GA 033 is illegible
===
GA 025 Papr Porphyrianus 9th Century
National Library of Russia, Gr. 225
Saint Petersburg
327 leaves
Seth Knorr
Mike Ferrando 0296 is not illegible. Do you have research access to INTF? You can view it there.


Mike Ferrando
Seth Knorr
Yes, I do. I have seen it and asked it to be transcribed. The manuscript is given descriptions as damaged and illegible by scholars. So, if you want to go out on a limb with your transcription, go for it. However, the manuscript has other issues as well.
1. Alexandrian (nothing to see here same old same old)
2. Provenance just as cloak/dagger as Sinaiticus. No reason for us to consider the find authentic until it is dated using technology.
Conclusion: Another manuscript from Alexandria... big deal. We know what it is going to say even if it could be read.
I think that about covers it.


Seth Knorr
Mike Ferrando who said 0296 is Alexandrian? It was found at St Catherine’s and is dated to the 6th century. Second carbon dating can be inaccurate. It has already been transcribed by INTF, I checked there transcription based on the actual manuscript and it was correct. The manuscript has very clear lettering and is actually very easy to read.


Mike Ferrando
Seth Knorr
Typical type of manuscript opponents of the comma come up with. No issues with the suspicious and unethical handling and provenance, all that aside because it has a favorable reading for your argument... While Ottobianus is cast aside because it is 14th century (found in the Vatican by Scholtz).
YOU DO KNOW, that printing did not begin until the mid 15th century. So, this manuscript SHOULD BE CONSIDERED a Witness. But no, go on, with your worm eaten "secret room" evidence. I can see how that all makes sense. NOT.


Seth Knorr
048 is damaged and hard to read, but the manuscript is in tact and can be clearly seen that it is missing the Comma. This is also on INTF site
Mike Ferrando
Let's just rehash for a moment.
Here are the the manuscripts that are extent for the first 8 centuries.
All from Alexandria.
GA 01 Sinaiticus (4th century)
GA 03 Vaticanus (4th century)
GA 02 Alexandrinus (5th century)
===
Another was found in 1975 in Alexandria (Saint Catherine's Monastery)
GA 0296 dated 6th century : Damaged and illegible
It's another Sinaiticus discovery.
"secret room" discovered by ??someone??
manuscripts in the "secret room" examined by ??someone??
GA 0296 determined to be a rare find by ??someone??
GA 0296 kept secret for many months after the find ??WHY??
Select scholars invited to view the manuscript
===
So, was it found wrapped in a red cloth ??
Or was it found in a pile of manuscripts that were given to the fire??
If only Tichendorf was there it would be another perfect discovery!!
Maybe it should have been given the Hebrew letter Beth as its sigal??
GA 0296 : 6th Century : manuscripts discovered in Saint Catherine's Monastery at Sinai in May 1975, during the restoration work
Linos Politis (1980). "Nouveaux manuscrits grecs découverts au Mont Sinaï. Rapport Préliminaire". Scriptorium. 34: 5-17.


Mike Ferrando
Is this manuscript online now??
GA 025 Papr Porphyrianus
9th CenturyNational Library of Russia, Gr. 225
Saint Petersburg
327 leaves
Acts† (lacking Acts 1:1–2:13), Pauline Epistles† (lacking Romans 2:16–3:4; 8:32–9:10; 11:23–12:1; 1 Cor. 7:15–17; 12:23–13:5; 14:23–39; 2 Cor. 2:13–16; Col. 3:16–4:8; 1 Thes. 3:5–4:17), General Epistles† (lacking 1 John 3:20–5:1; Jude 4–15), Revelation† (lacking Rev. 16:12–17:1; 19:21–20:9; 22:6–end).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_uncials


Seth Knorr
Mike Ferrando I don’t have access to 025 currently. They do that sometimes where it is available and then all of the sudden it is not. But that doesn’t mean the transcription is wrong. Second I trust INTF to provide an accurate transcription more that I trust Wikipedia to be correct. Although, I will say, the info on Wikipedia for TC is correct a high percent of the time


Mike Ferrando
Seth Knorr
Right. So, do you have a screen snap? or something?? of this 9th century manuscript ?? I think we would all be very interested. And certainly, the transcription could be verified. Isn't that what you expect from others?
Please help us out with an actual image.
Thanks.


Michael George
Mike Ferrando And remind me, which side is it that clamors for the external evidence so much?


Seth Knorr
Michael George what does that even mean? That is a long list of manuscripts that lack it. You complain about one or two, even then that is a mountain of evidence against your position.


Michael George
Seth Knorr One day and one manuscript at a time my friend. Mike Ferrando and I have a life and it's a lot of work. Your help be appreciated for Mike's pioneering efforts have not been done before from what I can tell. Blessings.


Michael George
Seth Knorr There is a bigger 'mountain of evidence' for our position, in my view.

Michael George
Mike Ferrando Correct me if I am wrong, but should not James E Snapp Jr have rather said that Berg's list is a "list of the Greek manuscripts that contain first John but a possible significate portion of them don't contain I John chapter 5 at all, so it's no wonder the Comma Johanneum is not in the text for the whole chapter is missing?" So, are we safe to eliminate 025 from his list or are we waiting for a screen shot from Seth Knorr? Although it's safe to say on Wikipedia, as Reagan said, 'trust but verify.'

May be an image of map and text
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Mike Ferrando
Seth Knorr
Concerning the Codex Fuldensis (545 AD) translation by Victor of Capua...
Victor of Capua was a renowned Greek/Latin father best known by his high recommendation from Bede. Victor wrote commentaries on most of the bible translating Greek fathers writings into Latin.
What is significant about Codex Fuldensis is that Jerome's Prologue is found there. Jerome died in 420, and here we have his Prologue in Victor's manuscript in the 6th century. This manuscript of Victor's has annotations from Victor and his initials as having read and QC-ed the entire manuscript.
The Prologue found so early in a manuscript of unimpeachable provenance, demonstrates that the Prologue is infact by Jerome. This finding was an absolute slam to the critics who believe the prologue was invented sometime in the 9th century to support the verse. Another critic's theory defeated!
The omission of the Heavenly & Earthly Witnesses is of no real importance because there is no attempt to "insert" it into the text of I John.
Victor included the Prologue because he knew it was important. However, he had no Greek manuscripts available to him that contained the verses Jerome alluded to in his Prologue. The letter of I John offered few surviving manuscripts. Jerome does not QUOTE the verse in the Prologue. Thus Victor did not attempt to insert it. I hope that clears things up.

Mike Ferrando
Seth Knorr
Wow, is this another ad hoc theory/mystery??
The fable of "not invented until the 9th century as an afterthought to support the interpolated verse" is dead. So, you have to come up with more ad hoc conjectures??
Let's just stay focused on the facts.
The Fuldensis Codex has a long an unimpeachable provenance. For over one hundred (100) years, the critics have added conjecture upon conjecture about the Prologue of Jerome to the Catholic Epistles.
They have been completely wrong. Worse, this manuscript has been available to anyone interested in doing their homework to see, examine and even includes annotations of Victor of Capua in the manuscript on many of the pages.
===
The Critics are WRONG, they have been WRONG for hundreds of years about the prologue. Even better, here is Victor of Capua double down on the authenticity of the Prologue (no doubt it is from Jerome) in 545, when Jerome passed in 420 AD. Obviously Victor endorses the Prologue as by Jerome. It is in the manuscript because it contains important information about Scripture (God's Holy Word). So, like any good Christian, it is included in the manuscript. The Prologue does NOT quote the verse. So, Victor did not TAMPER with the Scripture, but rather includes the important NOTE from Jerome.
===
Your conjectured "mysterious" whole-cloth theory is absurd. One only need look at the facts and any Christian would understand why Victor included the Prologue. There is no going back, Victor has affirmed the Prologue as authentic and by Jerome.
We are still waiting for an apology from all the ugly hubris piled onto Christians who believed correctly about the verse and the Prologue.
Why not start with that?
===
God bless the 460 of Carthage who gave us a Christian Witness to the verses that no ad hoc theory nor worm eaten manuscript from a "secret room" can undermine or overturn.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Mike Ferrando
Codex Ottobonianus 298 (1300-1399 AD)
GREEK WITNESS FOR THE HEAVENLY & EARTHLY Witnesses
"lack of articles"
False statement.
Articles do appear in the prepositional phrases:
>>Codex Ottobonianus 298 (1300-1399 AD
ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς : Greek article: τῆς
ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ : Greek article: τοῦ
>>Codex Montfortianus (15th century)
ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, : Greek article: τῷ
ἐν τῇ γῇ, : Greek article: τῇ
These prepositional phrases appear in the Codex Montfortianus (15th century) with the articles.
===
It is claimed that the preposition in Latin "in" will be back translated into the Greek preposition ἐν, but as you can see, that is not what happened here. Porson (et al) claimed that the preposition ἐν in the Greek was incorrect and should be the Greek preposition ἐπὶ (as in the Complutensian Polyglot Bible NT 1517 (before Erasmus first edition). As you can see the preposition used the Greek in the Codex Ottobonianus 298 (1300-1399 AD) is ἀπὸ.
The Codex Montfortianus (15th century) also has articles in the prepositional phrases contrary to the claim "back translated from Latin"
Moreover, in the Codex Montfortianus (15th century), verse 8, there are no articles before the Greek words "Spirit", "water", and "blood".
Again, the inconsistencies demonstrate that the assumptions of this "back translated to Greek from the Latin" argument is false. None of the expected Greek is used in these two codexes as the critics claim.
I asked my Lain translator about the Greek preposition ἀπὸ being a possible "back translation from the Latin", She said that there was no way that could be possible for someone that knew Latin. The use of the prepositional phases WITH ARTICLES condemns Snap (et al) as being half-truths and worse complete deception.
Forster pointed this out long ago.


Mike Ferrando
Codex Ottobonianus 298 (1300-1399 AD)
Another point concerning the assumption of "back translated from Latin", is the last clause in verse 7 "the three are one". The Latin is usually "et tres unum sunt",
In Codex Ottobonianus, the last clause in verse 7 reads: "et hij tres unum sunt." (note the demonstrative pronoun "hij")
But Codex Ottobonianus 298 (1300-1399 AD) has "καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσι."
How exactly does a simple Latin clause become such a nuanced Greek clause?? Obviously this is not something a non-Greek scribe would "back translate" from the simple Latin clause "tres unum sunt".
Obviously, the Greek is from a Greek manuscript in both the Codex Ottobonianus & the Codex Montfortianus do not and never have conformed to the expectations of these ad hoc critical arguments.
https://independent.academia.edu/MidusItis
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Mike Ferrando
Seth Knorr
Absurd. 1 or 2 we complain about?? We are simply stating the facts that you are unwilling to admit about your supposed evidence. There are plenty of fathers in Greek (who were bilingual) writings who believed the Heavenly & Earthly witnesses were Scripture. Just look at the writings of Facundus affirming the orthodox doctrine of Christ's incarnation. He quotes the earthly witneses 5 or 6 times. He is Greek father who spent most of his time in Constantinople and the work "Defense of the Three Chapters" was written in Latin for the Emperor of Constantinople. The idea that Latin cannot be used for doctrine and quote Scripture is nonsense. You have been duped by the bogus arguments of the critics.


Seth Knorr
Mike Ferrando I never said Latin quotes aren’t evidence. I have said some of stats were wrong. But the earliest Latin manuscripts also disprove your position. Second just because I or a Church father believes in the Trinity doesn’t mean they had the Comma in their manuscript
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top