Greek earthly witnesses yet omit heavenly - ECW - is grammar always masculine?

Steven Avery

Administrator
Greek earthly witnesses yet omit heavenly - ECW - is grammar always masculine?

https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...sion-earthly-witnesses-without-heavenly.1358/

These may include some that are light evidence, e.g. if the context is water baptism.
And there are not very many.

Origen

Clement of Alexandria

Cyril of Alexandria

Chrysostom

possibly some editions of Zigabenus

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

The Eusebius and Ambrose references below probably do not have the earthly witnesses.

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

Manuscripts

Can be discussed separately, like the one mentioned by Matthaei that says in a note that the Trinity explains the discordant grammar.
Are there any neuter grammar variants in the 500 odd mss?

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

Latin no grammatical issues of masculine discordance

Rebaptism (Latin) - from Brooke
1620360007106.png


Augustine

Leo

=======
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
RGA - p. 23

Until the ninth century we find Latin writers quoting the context of 1 Jn 5:6-8 but omitting the comma, suggesting that it was still absent from the Latin text with which those particular authors were familiar.22

22 When Pope Eusebius (309/310) wrote to the bishops of Gaul (Eusebius, History V.1-4; PL 7:1103-1104) he quoted a large chunk of 1 Jn but left out the comma. The same may be observed in ps.-Cyprian, De rebaptismate XV (PL 3:1200), in an early treatise on the Trinity attributed (not definitively) to Ambrose (PL 17:517) and in Pope Leo’s letter to Flavian of Constantinople (Epist. 28; PL 62:506), cited below. A good review of the evidence of the Latin Fathers is found in Brooke, 1912, 155-164, from whom I draw several points.

Brooke
https://books.google.com/books?id=_ekYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA155
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Grantley - (Eusebius, History V.1-4; PL 7:1103-1104)

The Christian remembrancer; or, The Churchman's Biblical, ecclesiastical & literary miscellany, Volume 4 (1822)
John Oxlee - Rector of Scawton
https://books.google.com/books?id=i_EDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA265

It is quoted, together with nearly the whole of the chapter, in. an epistle of Pope Eusebius to the Gallican bishops; in which we find, at the same time, a fatal blow directed against the authenticity of the Heavenly Witnesses—Et spiritus est qui testificatur, quoniam Christus est veritas. Quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium dant, spiritus, sanguis, et aqua ; et hi tres unum sunt. Si testimonium hominum accipimus, &c. In this epistle, I say, we have not merely the twentieth verse fully cited; but what highly concerns the main controversy, the most complete and positive evidence against the interpolaition of the Heavenly Witnesses in the present Latin Version ; and that, too, from a document of which the Latin church herself is both the author and the keeper. It will be ill vain to reply, that this epistle may have been penned by some later hand than Pope Eusebius himself, for whoever the author of it might be, he was doubtless a sound trinitarian, a member of the Romish church, and had before him at the time that Latin Version of the first epistle of St. John, which was current at the period in which be flourished.
 
Last edited:
Top