James Snapp struggles against the heavenly witnesses - Proverbs 18:17

[Steven Avery]

sister threads

James Snapp struggles against the heavenly witnesses - Proverbs 18:17
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.960

when James Snapp made lucid arguments on the heavenly witnesses evidemces
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.909

This was originally placed here on Facebook, then brought to PBF

Facebook
James Snapp struggles against the heavenly witnesses
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/1097251690366719/




James in brown

Tuesday, August 23, 2016
Cyprian and the Comma Johanneum - James Snapp
http://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2016/08/cyprian-and-comma-johanneum.html.

Lets go over this article by James Snapp.

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

"Comma Johanneum in Greek manuscripts is staggeringly poor."

Virtually all these mss are late, and the Greek Byzantine text had normalized on omission. So, how many are before 500 AD? 700 AD? 900 AD? (you can even include the SInaiticus 1800s ms). That information is critical in such a discussion of the significance of omission.

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

"The Latin support for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum is plentiful, and its earliest components are only slightly later than the earliest manuscript-evidence for non-inclusion."

This "slightly later" is absurd, as it is circular to the Snapp later lack of logic. Cyprian is clearly far earlier than any omission ms. evidence. There are numerous supporting early allusions, e.g. Hundredfold Martyrs has been in the modern version apparatus as Ps-Cyprian. Cyprian (two refs), Tertullian and Hundredfold Martyrs give you four (and more) components earlier than any ms, two of which have even been in the tinged modern apparatus.

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

In listing the major fully accepted references (even by hardened contras) evidences, the 10 Books on the Trinity, that have multiple references, is omitted.

Numerous lesser references are omitted. Even a trip to Wikipedia would have filled in many of these gaps.

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

The Councils of Carthage section is fair, James omits a few salient points. One perplexity I will mention here:

"about four hundred bishops of Africa and Mauritania, together with others from Corsica and Sardinia, met in Carthage"
Thomas Joseph Lamy, American Ecclesiastical Review, 1 John v 7, 1897 p.464

How did James reduce this to "over 100"?

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

"more probably by Vigilius Tapsensis in North Africa "

As I remember, this is old scholarship, quite dubious, yet commonly repeated.

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

"the CJ is mentioned in the Preface to the Canonical Epistles"

James is extremely deceptive here, since he does not even mention that this is a first-person writing of Jerome. And consistent with Jerome's history, style and knowledge.

James has tried to take the position that it is a forgery, but has never been willing to try to expound and defend that position, which really is a frivolous objection of no merit. Especially since the original accusation was built upon the idea that the Prologue only showed up in later mss.

Probably understood, this is one of the super-evidences, like Cyprian, like Carthage, like the grammar and internal evidences, which, with the large Old Latin and Latin ms body of evidence, any one of which is probative to authenticity.

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

(to be continued

The Diversion of the Negative Analogy - Missing the Real Analogy

Now I want to stop for a moment on the "negative analogy", the analogy that misses the point, and thus does more harm than good. This is a skill that James has honed.

"Against the point that none of the early Greek manuscripts of First John contain the CJ, the counterpoint may be submitted that Hort, in 1881, argued for six readings in the General Epistles which are likewise supported by no ancient Greek manuscripts – and in 2013, the Nestle-Aland compilers adopted a reading into the text of Second Peter 3:10 that is found in no Greek manuscripts. Clearly, at least among some highly influential textual critics, the lack of early Greek manuscript support does not rule out the plausibility of a textual variant."

We don't really care about some Critical Text absurdities and oddball variants. The simplest and strongest analogy verse to the heavenly witnesses is Acts 8:37, a verse that James has defended as authentic scripture. It has many similar elements.

1) full verse
2) doctrinally salient
3) easy methods to omission
4) likelihood of inclusion over omission a basic textual truth
5) blatant obvious lacuna if verse is omitted
6) weak Greek support
7) strong ECW and Latin support

The major differences it that the heavenly witnesses has a powerful grammatical argument.

Looking at Critical Text silliness is barely even majoring in the minors, it is just a distraction from the real issues, looking instead to non-issues and pseudo-issues.

James Snapp misrepresentation of heavenly witnesses defense
"So those who defend the CJ may have an answer to Dan Wallace’s charge that they are denying history. They are proposing that early scribal errors resulted in the corruption of all of the early Greek manuscripts"

Here we have Snapp engaging in error begets error, following his own errant emphasis. He pretends that pure Bible defenders of the heavenly witnesses rely on homoeoteleuton as their full argument.

The theory of omission includes two major complementary components:

1) doctrinal preference
2) homoeoteleuton

The "history" can easily involve both components. Homoeoteleuton leads to a missing verse, while doctrinal preferences lead to accepting the mangled, shortened verse in a scribal decision, faced with alternative manuscripts. The ONLY virtually impossible scenario is (2) -- homoeoteleuton only. Far more likely is either (2) followed by (1) or simply (1). The advantage of (2) followed by (1) is that it keeps a level of scribal integrity, but (1) alone is surely possible. The major dropping of the Greek line could have occurred during the "Sabellian" controversies, where "and these three are one" might be seen as too supportive of their position.

If James was really familiar with the writings of men like Edward Freer Hills and Henry Thomas Armfield, he would be more aware of this element. There are many reasons why in the Ante-Nicene period (referred to by Hills and Armfield), or even in the Reformation era, scribes would prefer the shortened, mangled verse.

In the latter period, better known, a couple of names to research would be Bugenhagen and Luther, and Grotius. Even Erasmus may have well been influenced to hold back the verse in the editions 1 & 2 by what is called his semi-Arian doctrine.

The last thing in the world AV and heavenly witnesses defenders need is James Snapp doing a faux formulation of our arguments.

My view, we really do not need frenemies of the pure Bible posturing, and thus pretending to speak for us.

The Phantasmogorical idea of Cyprian Allegorizing

The next argument from James is a total fail. You can not make a reasonable analogy from 400 AD or 600 AD to mystical or allegorical interpretations and try to force them back on Cyprian and try to force them back on Cyprian in 250 AD in the Ante-Nicene era before the Arian controversies.

1) Cyprian is a careful quoter of scripture. And in the Unity of the Church quote he specifically says he is quoting scripture.

2) By 400 to 600 AD you had a whole history of back and forth with the heavenly and earthly witnesses. As an example the paper by Fickermann proposes that Augustine was well aware of the heavenly witnesses and simply preferred to bypass the verse (likely knowing that it involved split line theory). The doctrinal and textual echos of the heavenly witnesses would be the root cause the very selfsame later allegorizing.

The idea of James that you can backward analogize from Scotti Anonymi to Cyprian is a joke. Many astute writers like Armfield and Pieper have dealt with this phony argumentation. Marty Shue dealt with this years ago in the online discussions. Yes, it could be its own mini-paper.

"when these nouns are rearranged as “the water and the blood and the spirit,” a symbolic interpretation becomes much more natural."

Not for Cyprian, there is no way to mangle his precise writing and do a wild mind-reading, except as a worthless ultra-conjectural nothing.

Omission as Trickery

The last point about this Cyprian article is tricky omission, how James deceives in trying to pretend to be giving an overview of all the issues.

The massive Latin mss preponderance is bypassed.

The virtually complete Old Latin ms support is unmentioned.

Many ECW evidences in Greek and Latin are unmentioned.

The knowledge that omission is easy, inclusion is difficult.

The believer's understanding of the providential imperative. God would not "fool" a major part of his church with a faux fundamental scripture.

1 John 5:4-9
For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world:
and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world,
but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ;
not by water only, but by water and blood.
And it is the Spirit that beareth witness,
because the Spirit is truth.
For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness in earth,
the spirit, and the water, and the blood:
and these three agree in one.
If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater:
for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

"Internal" evidences, including the solecism, are unmentioned. This includes the incredible Johannine style and wording, and elements like the flat repetition when verse 7 is omitted, the "witness of God" in verse 9 pointing right back to the heavenly witnesses and more.

You almost have to be an ignoramus, or at least dull to the life of the scripture (or a modern textual critic), to try to argue against this verse with the wealth of support now available. The heavenly witnesses is the heart and mariner's compass (Bengel and Wesley) of the chapter, the Epistle and the writings of John.

 

[Steven Avery]

Tertullian as a SOLID heavenly witnesses reference/allusion

Finished with the James Snapp paper.

This thread is a continuation from:

King James Bible Debate
John Mill reference.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/21209666692/permalink/10153986518126693/

Where there is ongoing discussion.

The next part goes well with the recent John Lupia page.

Tertullian as a SOLID heavenly witnesses reference/allusion

Corroborating Cyprian and other evidences.

From above:
"here are numerous supporting early allusions, e.g. Hundredfold Martyrs has been in the modern version apparatus as Ps-Cyprian. Cyprian (two refs), Tertullian and Hundredfold Martyrs give you four (and more) components earlier than any ms, two of which have even been in the tinged modern apparatus."

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

One thing that is important is that the Tertullian Adversus Praxean (thee are others too, but this one is key) reference is actually solid, when you look at the full context:

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

“So the close series of the Father in the Son and the Son in the Paraclete makes three who cohere, the one attached to the other. And these three are one substance, not one person (qui tres unum sunt, non unus) in the sense in which it was said ‘I and the Father are one' [John 10:30], in respect of unity of substance, not of singularity of number.” - i. Advertus Praxean 25 (121 [L]169 [ET]

Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives
Francis Schüssler Fiorenza modifies the Robert Evan translation
https://books.google.com/books?id=vkXV2MZYLrYC&pg=PA159

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

So in the context of talking of the Father, the Son (with == to the Word) and the Paraclete (Holy Spirit) Tertullian actually discusses two main understandings that have still been discussed frequently from Erasmus and Calvin to today -- are the three in one in substance, or number .. another idea that comes up is agreement.

Why would he have that discussion?

Simply because of the "three are one" in 1 John 5:7. Confirmed in the Bible of the day in the same era by Cyprian, Hundredfold Witnesses and other evidences.

And I might add other translations and commentary, but this just hit me today when looking at the grammar issues and page discussing Thomas Burgess .. so here it is!

Robert Kacak

Right! Tertullian's reference to "three are one" is in the context of writing about the Trinity. This CJ reference is paired with Jn 10:30.

And Cyprian does the same exact thing, and pairs the CJ phrase with John 10:30, but this time adds "it is written".

Other important things scholars fail to consider and mention are Cyprian was Tertullian's disciple, who took over as master of his Greek school. They categorize both of them as Latin Fathers, but never reveal their greek writings. Surely if they were mentioning any scripture in the Latin, it would have to match the greek.

Steven Avery

Exactly. Cyprian especially was likely quite adept at Greek, there was no Chinese language wall among the scholars of the day. As for Tertullian's Greek, I would have to check a bit my notes. However, there is no doubt that these men are witnesses to the Latin and Greek texts of their time.

And you are right to point out that both men pair John 10:30 with the heavenly witnesses. Such corroborative testimony increases the value multi-fold.

Tertullian's Greek is covered in the John Lupia post.

Steven Avery
A 2015 post about Cyprian's knowledge of Greek
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/848424185249472/

 

[Steven Avery]

Steve Rafalsky shares - getting to the spiritual heart of the matter

Facebook - The Received Text
https://www.facebook.com/groups/receivedtext/permalink/2159271904323181/?comment_id=2162734433976928&reply_comment_id=2164632957120409&comment_tracking={"tn":"R"}

Steve Rafalsky
Thank you for your response, James. I have looked over your site at the places you linked to, and you have done a lot of work opposing the authenticity of the TR at 1 John 5:7 (as many others also have in the last few centuries). But in so doing you have placed yourself and your suppositions—both historical and textual—above a great company of men whose godly learning and wisdom, access to manuscripts provided in the Lord’s providence, and expertise in the languages involved—and in the estimation of those of us who trust our God’s providence in this matter—are to be trusted over you and those of your company of independent text critics . . . from our vantage, loose cannons.

As it is now, we are pleased to be among those who confess to the LORD’s faithfulness in providing for us an intact Bible according to His promises to us to preserve His word in its minute purity, according to the Scriptures I posted above. We declare our faith as expressed in these Reformed Confessions, all of which contain 1 John 5:7 in their Scripture proof texts:

Westminster Confession of Faith 1646 2.3
Westminster Shorter Catechism Answer 6 (The original text of 1647, with the Assembly’s proof texts)
The London Baptist Confession of 1689 2:3
The Belgic Confession of 1561, Article 9 quotes the passage: “There are three who bear witness in heaven– the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit– and these three are one.”
The Heidelberg Catechism of 1563, Lord’s Day 8, Q&A 25, footnote 5

It is a matter of trust, and you do not have ours. We trust those who confess the Reformed Faith.

Steve understands that the struggle of James Snapp is one more of unsure faith and wavering belief than of scholastic analysis.

I would say the CJ didn’t “squeak through” but was ushered into the TR by the LORD’s providence.

I note that the piece you linked to above on your blog, “Cyprian and the Comma Johanneum”, had a comment from the author of the site, Pure Bible, giving a link to interaction with you on Cyprian. Reading Steven Avery’s remarks brought to mind

Proverbs 18:17:
“He that is first in his own cause seemeth just;
but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him.”

Steven also referred to Martin Shue’s response to Daniel Wallace, whom you recommended.

I think I do well to steer clear of you, James. You really are not trustworthy in your scholarship, although you think to foist upon the world yet another New Testament—James E Snapp Jr contra mundum—setting aside the godly wisdom and skill of men the LORD brought together to give His people a sure Bible . . . which Reformation you diss with a wave of your hand as a raft of mere “tradition”.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/receivedtext/permalink/2159271904323181/?comment_id=2162734433976928&reply_comment_id=2165178123732559&comment_tracking={"tn":"R"}

I do perceive why you MUST attack the TR, the translations made from it, and the Reformation Confessions, as they stand in the way of what you purpose. If the TR is sound then your work—the macro view, the supposition that drives it—is false, and your NT unneeded. So for the very life of you you must seek to tear down what by its very existence opposes you. The world is not big enough to hold both you and the Reformation
.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/rec...=2165616473688724&comment_tracking={"tn":"R"}

 

[Steven Avery]

Facebook - NT Textual Criticism (2023-11-15)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/posts/7157635320990073/

Facebook - Textual Receptus Academy
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467217787457422/posts/1461039064741951/

 

[Steven Avery]

Facebook NT Textual Criticism discussion of Heavenly Witnesses

FIRST JOHN 5:7 AND GREEK MANUSCRIPTS
My brothers, let us turn again to the subject of First John 5:7, and focus on what the existing Greek manuscripts show us. (Notice the many embedded links in this material, which, if you click the links after reading this, will show more data.)

My good friend and competent scholar Elijah Hixson offered an informative post at the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog which included pictures of the few Greek manuscripts which have the Comma Johanneum in the text of First John 5:7.

The earliest such manuscript is GA 629, a Latin-Greek manuscript dated to 1362. I offered some analysis of the text of First John 5:7 in GA 629 in August of 2016 (see the replica of the relevant part of 629 at this link, or a page-view of the manuscript itself at the Vatican Library’s website at this link).

The second-oldest manuscript of First John, as far as I know, that has the Comma Johanneum in the text of 5:7 is GA 61, which was made in the early 1500s. The third-oldest Greek manuscript with the Comma Johanneum in the text of First John 5:7 is GA 918. Brother Elijah Hixson, by a series of simple deductions, narrowed his estimate of its production-date to the 1570s.
And that is all, unless we include GA 2473 (from 1634) and 2318 (from the 1700s) – both of which were made after printed editions of the Greek New Testament were made, and which very probably include the Comma Johanneum because their copyists used a printed Greek New Testament as an exemplar.
The other manuscripts do not have the Comma Johanneum in the text; the Comma Johanneum is written in the margin instead. Hixson’s post includes pictures of the relevant portions of these manuscripts, so I will only spend a little time reviewing them here:
● In GA 221, a manuscript from the 900s, the Comma Johanneum is written in the margin, but it appears that the Comma Johanneum arrived there rather recently, considering that (as Hixson reports) a description of GA 221 made in 1854 says that the manuscript does not have the Comma Johanneum, with nothing said about a margin-note.
● In GA 177, the Comma Johanneum is written in the upper margin of the page and is identified by its verse-number, which means that the Comma Johanneum was placed in the margin of GA 177 sometime after 1550. (Our brother Dan Wallace noticed the Comma Johanneum in the margin of GA 177 in 2010.) Hixson offers a more precise date: the annotator of this manuscript left his name in it: Ignatius Hardt, who was born in 1749. Guided by a little more data about Hardt’s career, brother Hixson estimated that Hardt wrote the Comma Johanneum in the margin of 177 no earlier than the 1770s.
● In GA 88, a manuscript from the 1100s, the Comma Johanneum appears in the margin with almost no clues about who added it or when. Almost no clues: as Hixson observed, whereas copyists routinely contracted sacred names such as “Father” and “Spirit,” in the margin-note in 88 these words are written out in full, which may indicate that the person writing them was using as his source a printed book, rather than a manuscript.
● In GA 429, a manuscript from the 1300s, the Comma Johanneum is written in the margin, and it matches up with the text of the Comma Johanneum printed in Erasmus’ third edition – because, as Hixson explains, Erasmus’ third edition was its source.
● In GA 636, a manuscript from the 1400s, the Comma Johanneum is written in the margin, and is missing the articles, which is consistent with a scenario in which it was translated from Latin.
Brothers, let us thoughtfully consider the implications of this evidence.

First, there is no Greek manuscript made before the 1500s in which the Comma Johanneum appears in the text of First John in a form which does not appear to be derived from Latin; strictly speaking, the exact text of the Comma Johanneum that appears in the Textus Receptus does not appear in the text of any Greek manuscript made before the 1500s.

Second, in the Greek manuscripts in which the Comma Johanneum appears in the margin, it either appears to be derived from Latin, or else it appears to have been copied from a printed source.
Now let us look on the other side of the equation.

Here, from the competent researcher Timothy Berg, is a list of existing (and catalogued) Greek manuscripts that DO contain First John 5:7 but do NOT have the Comma Johanneum in the text:
Manuscripts Produced Before the 700s: 01, 03, 02, 048, 0296
Manuscripts Produced in the 700s-800s: 018, 020, 025, 049, 0142, 1424, 1862, 1895, 2464
Manuscripts Assigned to the 900s: 044, 056, 82, 93, 175, 181, 221, 307, 326, 398, 450, 454, 456, 457, 602, 605, 619, 627, 832, 920, 1066, 1175, 1720, 1739, 1829, 1836, 1837, 1841, 1845, 1851, 1871, 1874, 1875, 1880, 1891, 2125, 2147,
Manuscripts Assigned to the 1000s: 35, 36, 2, 42, 43, 81, 104, 131, 133, 142, 177, 250, 302, 325, 312, 314, 424, 436, 451, 458, 459, 462, 464, 465, 466, 491, 506, 517, 547, 606, 607, 617, 623, 624, 635, 638, 639, 641, 699, 796, 901, 910, 919, 945, 1162, 1243, 1244, 1270, 1311, 1384, 1521, 1668, 1724, 1730, 1735, 1738, 1828, 1835, 1838, 1846, 1847, 1849, 1854, 1870, 1888, 2138, 2191, 2344, 2475, 2587, 2723, 2746
Manuscripts Assigned to the 1100s: 3, 38, 1, 57, 88, 94, 97, 103, 105, 110, 180, 203, 226, 256, 319, 321, 323, 330, 337, 365, 431, 440, 442, 452, 618, 620, 622, 625, 632, 637, 656, 720, 876, 917, 922, 927, 1058, 1115, 1127, 1241, 1245, 1315, 1319, 1359, 1360, 1448, 1490, 1505, 1573, 1611, 1646, 1673, 1718, 1737, 1740, 1743, 1752, 1754, 1850, 1853, 1863, 1867, 1868, 1872, 1885, 1889, 1893, 1894, 1897, 2127, 2143, 2186, 2194, 2289, 2298, 2401, 2412, 2541, 2625, 2712, 2718, 2736, 2805
Manuscripts Assigned to the 1200s: 4, 5, 6, 51, 204, 206, 172, 141, 218, 234, 263, 327, 328, 378, 383, 384, 390, 460, 468, 469, 479, 483, 496, 592, 601, 614, 643, 665, 757, 912, 914, 915, 941, 999, 1069, 1070, 1072, 1094, 1103, 1107, 1149, 1161, 1242, 1251, 1292, 1297, 1352, 1398, 1400, 1404, 1456, 1501, 1509, 1523, 1563, 1594, 1595, 1597, 1609, 1642, 1719, 1722, 1727, 1728, 1731, 1736, 1758, 1780, 1827, 1839, 1842, 1843, 1852, 1855, 1857, 1858, 1860, 1864, 1865, 1873, 2180, 2374, 2400, 2404, 2423, 2483, 2502, 2558, 2627, 2696
Manuscripts Assigned to the 1300s: 18, 62, 76, 189, 201, 209, 216, 223, 254, 308, 363, 367, 386, 393, 394, 404, 421, 425, 429, 453, 489, 498, 582, 603, 604, 608, 621, 628, 630, 633, 634, 680, 743, 794, 808, 824, 913, 921, 928, 935, 959, 986, 996, 1022, 1040, 1067, 1075, 1099, 1100, 1102, 1106, 1248, 1249, 1354, 1390, 1409, 1482, 1495, 1503, 1524, 1548, 1598, 1599, 1610, 1618, 1619, 1622, 1637, 1643, 1661, 1678, 1717, 1723, 1725, 1726, 1732, 1733, 1741, 1742, 1744, 1746, 1747, 1753, 1761, 1762, 1765, 1769, 1831, 1832, 1856, 1859, 1866, 1877, 1881, 1882, 1886, 1890, 1892, 1899, 1902, 2080, 2085, 2086, 2197, 2200, 2261, 2279, 2356, 2431, 2466, 2484, 2492, 2494, 2508, 2511, 2527, 2626, 2675, 2705, 2716, 2774, 2777
Manuscripts Assigned to the 1400s: 69, 102, 149, 205, 322, 368, 385, 400, 432, 444, 467, 615, 616, 631, 636, 664, 801, 1003, 1105, 1247, 1250, 1367, 1405, 1508, 1626, 1628, 1636, 1649, 1656, 1729, 1745, 1750, 1751, 1757, 1763, 1767, 1830, 1876, 1896, 2131, 2221, 2288, 2352, 2495, 2523, 2554, 2652, 2653, 2691, 2704
Manuscripts Assigned to the 1500s and Later: 90, 296, 522, 1702, 1704, 1749, 1768, 1840, 1844, 1861, 2130, 2218, 2255, 2378, 2501, 2516, 2544, 1101, 1721, 1748, 1869, 1903, 2243, 2674, 2776, 2473, 1104
With this information in mind, let us consider a few extracts from a defense of the Comma Johanneum recently offered by brother Taylor DeSoto of Agros Reformed Baptist Church in Arizona:

► “There is manuscript evidence for it.” True. Hixson’s analysis shows that there is Greek manuscript evidence for the Comma Johanneum . Brother Elijah Hixson has also shown us that the Greek manuscript evidence is sparse, and late, and shows clear signs of being derived either from Latin or from a printed text.
► “It has more manuscript evidence support than let’s just say, the Gospel of Mark without 16:9-20.” That is not quite the case. There are three Greek manuscripts in which Mark 16 ends at 16:8 (Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and GA 304 – all of which have anomalous features). Technically, the quantities are equal. Brother Taylor spoke honestly when he said this.

However, it is foolish to use simple quantities to frame this evidence, as if one bag of rocks weighs the same as another bag of rocks. Most of the words in Codex Vaticanus (written, I suspect, in the early 300s) and most of the words in Codex Sinaiticus (written in the mid-300s) are the earliest substantial Greek representatives of Mark 16:1-8. GA 629 was produced in the mid-1300s. GA 61 is from the early 1500s. GA 918 is from the 1570s. And the rest, as Hixson’s data shows, are either dependent on Latin, or else are extremely late.
As a defender of the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20, I do not grant to Codex Sinaiticus or to Codex Vaticanus the level of weight that was given to them by Westcott and Hort (and which continues, in some circles, to be assumed).

But there is more than the testimony of Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus to consider, my brothers.

We must also consider the testimony of 02, 048, 0296, 018, 020, 025, 049, 0142, 1424, 1862, 1895, 2464, 044, 056, 82, 93, 175, 181, 221, 307, 326, 398, 450, 454, 456, 457, 602, 605, 619, 627, 832, 920, 1066, 1175, 1720, 1739, 1829, 1836, 1837, 1841, 1845, 1851, 1871, 1874, 1875, 1880, 1891, 2125, 2147, 35, 36, 2, 42, 43, 81, 104, 131, 133, 142, 177, 250, 302, 325, 312, 314, 424, 436, 451, 458, 459, 462, 464, 465, 466, 491, 506, 517, 547, 606, 607, 617, 623, 624, 635, 638, 639, 641, 699, 796, 901, 910, 919, 945, 1162, 1243, 1244, 1270, 1311, 1384, 1521, 1668, 1724, 1730, 1735, 1738, 1828, 1835, 1838, 1846, 1847, 1849, 1854, 1870, 1888, 2138, 2191, 2344, 2475, 2587, 2723, 2746, 3, 38, 1, 57, 88, 94, 97, 103, 105, 110, 180, 203, 226, 256, 319, 321, 323, 330, 337, 365, 431, 440, 442, 452, 618, 620, 622, 625, 632, 637, 656, 720, 876, 917, 922, 927, 1058, 1115, 1127, 1241, 1245, 1315, 1319, 1359, 1360, 1448, 1490, 1505, 1573, 1611, 1646, 1673, 1718, 1737, 1740, 1743, 1752, 1754, 1850, 1853, 1863, 1867, 1868, 1872, 1885, 1889, 1893, 1894, 1897, 2127, 2143, 2186, 2194, 2289, 2298, 2401, 2412, 2541, 2625, 2712, 2718, 2736, 2805, and so forth.
► “Those who attack the authenticity of this reading appeal to the assumption that it was introduced from a Latin manuscript.”

Brother Taylor DeSoto wrote as if there is no basis for this “assumption.” He was incorrect.

Deduce, brothers, from the evidence: in the old Latin text of First John 5:8 (as I have explained already), the nouns are typically transposed to the order water-blood-spirit, which is conducive to a figurative interpretation in which the water represents the Father (see Jeremiah 2:13), the blood represents the Son, and the Spirit represents, of course, the Holy Spirit.

That interpretation IS the Comma Johanneum . It is an interpretive gloss that was inserted into the Old Latin text (and from there into the later medieval Vulgate text). Its origin is linked to the transposition: in evidence uninfluenced by Latin, where the transposition is absent, the Comma Johanneum is absent as well.
► “Can 1 John 5:7 be said to have been definitively introduced from the Latin, as though it were never found in a Greek manuscript?”

Yes. All one needs to do is observe the evidence and think it through. Everything is completely consistent with precisely that scenario.

Look at the Latin text that runs parallel to the Greek text in 629. Look at the absence of the articles, and look at the absence of the Comma Johanneum in 02, 048, 0296, 018, 020, 025, 049, 0142, 1424, 1862, 1895, 2464, 044, 056, 82, 93, 175, 181, 221, 307, 326, 398, 450, 454, 456, 457, 602, 605, 619, 627, 832, 920, 1066, 1175, 1720, 1739, 1829, 1836, 1837, 1841, 1845, 1851, 1871, 1874, 1875, 1880, 1891, 2125, 2147, 35, 36, 2, 42, 43, 81, 104, 131, 133, 142, 177, 250, 302, 325, 312, 314, 424, 436, 451, 458, 459, 462, 464, 465, 466, 491, 506, 517, 547, 606, 607, 617, 623, 624, 635, 638, 639, 641, 699, 796, 901, 910, 919, 945, 1162, 1243, 1244, 1270, 1311, 1384, 1521, 1668, 1724, 1730, 1735, 1738, 1828, 1835, 1838, 1846, 1847, 1849, 1854, 1870, 1888, 2138, 2191, 2344, 2475, 2587, 2723, 2746, 3, 38, 1, 57, 88, 94, 97, 103, 105, 110, 180, 203, 226, 256, 319, 321, 323, 330, 337, 365, 431, 440, 442, 452, 618, 620, 622, 625, 632, 637, 656, 720, 876, 917, 922, 927, 1058, 1115, 1127, 1241, 1245, 1315, 1319, 1359, 1360, 1448, 1490, 1505, 1573, 1611, 1646, 1673, 1718, 1737, 1740, 1743, 1752, 1754, 1850, 1853, 1863, 1867, 1868, 1872, 1885, 1889, 1893, 1894, 1897, 2127, 2143, 2186, 2194, 2289, 2298, 2401, 2412, 2541, 2625, 2712, 2718, 2736, 2805, and so forth.

Ask, “ What more could I possibly ask for, if I were asking for evidence that the Comma Johanneum drifted into a few Greek manuscripts due to the actions of copyists who wanted to make their Greek copies conform more precisely to the meaning of their Latin copies?”

Brother Taylor DeSoto stated, “I have yet to see a scholar actually produce a manuscript, or historical source from antiquity which demonstrates that this verse was added from the Latin.”

Brother Taylor was resisting the plain implications of the evidence.
Brother Taylor DeSoto resorted to a grammatical argument (offered in a past generation by the competent reader Robert Dabney) as evidence for the genuineness of the Comma Johanneum .

Brother Taylor DeSoto stated, “The only people I have seen stand against this grammatical argument are people who self-admittedly are rusty in Greek.” His approach is a nothingburger. This was demonstrated by Dr. Barry Hofstetter in 2018 in the essay The Comma Johanneum and Greek Grammar.
Furthermore, Mr. Taylor DeSoto misrepresented the evidence when he stated that “Jerome and Nazianzes comment on it.”

By “Jerome,” Taylor meant the author of the Preface to the Canonical Epistles – an author who (as I have already pointed out) used the transposed form of First John 5:8.

By saying that “Gregory of Nazianzes comments on it,” Taylor DeSoto referred to the statement by Gregory of Nazianzus where, after stating that John says “that there are three that bear witness, the Spirit and the water and the blood” – as we find verse 8 in most manuscripts, without the phrase “on earth” – Gregory of Nazianzus mentioned a frivolous objection from a posited grammarian only in order to tear it down, stating “You see how completely your argument from con-numeration has completely broken down, and is refuted by all these instances,” and Gregory continued after sharing these words – never once citing any part of the Comma Johanneum.
It was, and is, false to claim that Gregory of Nazianzus commented on the Comma Johanneum. Gregory of Nazianzus DID NOT DO SO – at least, not in any writings for which we have evidence for.

Furthermore, in the very next chapter of his composition, Gregory of Nazianzus referred to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, without referencing the Comma Johanneum.
Taylor DeSoto did not leave that falsehood alone. He also claimed, “The Comma Johanneum was seated at 1 John 5:7 until evangelical textual critics began deconstructing the Scriptures.”

As long as we ignore the testimony of 02, 048, 0296, 018, 020, 025, 049, 0142, 1424, 1862, 1895, 2464, 044, 056, 82, 93, 175, 181, 221, 307, 326, 398, 450, 454, 456, 457, 602, 605, 619, 627, 832, 920, 1066, 1175, 1720, 1739, 1829, 1836, 1837, 1841, 1845, 1851, 1871, 1874, 1875, 1880, 1891, 2125, 2147, 35, 36, 2, 42, 43, 81, 104, 131, 133, 142, 177, 250, 302, 325, 312, 314, 424, 436, 451, 458, 459, 462, 464, 465, 466, 491, 506, 517, 547, 606, 607, 617, 623, 624, 635, 638, 639, 641, 699, 796, 901, 910, 919, 945, 1162, 1243, 1244, 1270, 1311, 1384, 1521, 1668, 1724, 1730, 1735, 1738, 1828, 1835, 1838, 1846, 1847, 1849, 1854, 1870, 1888, 2138, 2191, 2344, 2475, 2587, 2723, 2746, 3, 38, 1, 57, 88, 94, 97, 103, 105, 110, 180, 203, 226, 256, 319, 321, 323, 330, 337, 365, 431, 440, 442, 452, 618, 620, 622, 625, 632, 637, 656, 720, 876, 917, 922, 927, 1058, 1115, 1127, 1241, 1245, 1315, 1319, 1359, 1360, 1448, 1490, 1505, 1573, 1611, 1646, 1673, 1718, 1737, 1740, 1743, 1752, 1754, 1850, 1853, 1863, 1867, 1868, 1872, 1885, 1889, 1893, 1894, 1897, 2127, 2143, 2186, 2194, 2289, 2298, 2401, 2412, 2541, 2625, 2712, 2718, 2736, 2805, and so forth, Taylor DeSoto’s claim may be treated as if it is true.

Yes, my brothers, IF you resolve to be BLIND to these Greek manuscripts, and focus instead, like a horse wearing blinders, upon interpolated and transposed Latin texts, and on a few late manuscripts influenced by them, THEN you can say that you have a basis for keeping the Comma Johanneum in your text of First John.

IF you are going to say that it was a good thing that at some point in the past, the Latin text was on the throne, AND that it was a good thing that the Greek text was usurped and pushed to the side, AND that the old Latin text should usurp the Greek text today, THEN you are not recognizing the authority of the original Greek text written by John.
Finally, Mr. Taylor DeSoto asked, “Do we gain anything by removing this passage?”

I answer: this is a trick question.

When we look at 02, 048, 0296, 018, 020, 025, 049, 0142, 1424, 1862, 1895, 2464, 044, 056, 82, 93, 175, 181, 221, 307, 326, 398, 450, 454, 456, 457, 602, 605, 619, 627, 832, 920, 1066, 1175, 1720, 1739, 1829, 1836, 1837, 1841, 1845, 1851, 1871, 1874, 1875, 1880, 1891, 2125, 2147, 35, 36, 2, 42, 43, 81, 104, 131, 133, 142, 177, 250, 302, 325, 312, 314, 424, 436, 451, 458, 459, 462, 464, 465, 466, 491, 506, 517, 547, 606, 607, 617, 623, 624, 635, 638, 639, 641, 699, 796, 901, 910, 919, 945, 1162, 1243, 1244, 1270, 1311, 1384, 1521, 1668, 1724, 1730, 1735, 1738, 1828, 1835, 1838, 1846, 1847, 1849, 1854, 1870, 1888, 2138, 2191, 2344, 2475, 2587, 2723, 2746, 3, 38, 1, 57, 88, 94, 97, 103, 105, 110, 180, 203, 226, 256, 319, 321, 323, 330, 337, 365, 431, 440, 442, 452, 618, 620, 622, 625, 632, 637, 656, 720, 876, 917, 922, 927, 1058, 1115, 1127, 1241, 1245, 1315, 1319, 1359, 1360, 1448, 1490, 1505, 1573, 1611, 1646, 1673, 1718, 1737, 1740, 1743, 1752, 1754, 1850, 1853, 1863, 1867, 1868, 1872, 1885, 1889, 1893, 1894, 1897, 2127, 2143, 2186, 2194, 2289, 2298, 2401, 2412, 2541, 2625, 2712, 2718, 2736, 2805, and so forth, NOBODY is removing the passage because IT IS NOT THERE.

My brothers, you cannot fall off a horse you never encountered.
Also: YES we certainly gain something. We gain a purer, less corrupted Greek text which more closely resembles the original inspired Greek text written by John.
Taylor DeSoto stated in another post, “We need to receive the text as it has been passed down.”

I have pointed out to him and I point out to you (the person reading these words) the text of First John 5:7-8 that has been passed down in 99.2% of the handed-down Greek manuscripts. In 99.2% of the existing Greek manuscripts of John’s first epistle, the Comma Johanneum is unsupported.

I point out again that the non-inclusion of the Comma Johanneum IS supported by 99.2% of the Greek manuscripts known to exist.

I point out that at this particular point in First John 5:7, the Textus Receptus does not represent the text-that-was-handed-down, or the Byzantine Text, or the “Antiochan line.” This fact seems to have had no effect, as far as I can see, on Taylor DeSoto’s position.

It is clear to me that brother Taylor’s goal was NOT to defend the original text, and that brother Taylor’s goal was NOT to defend the text that has been handed down in Greek manuscripts.

Brother Taylor’s agenda was to defend the contents of the Textus Receptus, both the good parts and the bad parts.
(In addition: one must ask, “Which text that has been passed down?”, because the manuscripts that have survived to the present day do not always agree. When asking, “Is this reading authoritative?” the decisive sub-question is NOT, Is it popular?, or “Is it familiar to a particular group of people?” (such as English readers of the KJV, or formulators of a particular creed from the 1600s), but, “IS IT ORIGINAL?.)
Second, we lose the stigma of desperation which is the inevitable consequence of treating an interpolation as if deserves to be a foundation for Christian doctrine, as if the Textus Receptus must be right, and all those other manuscripts must be wrong. It is morally WRONG and strategically UNWISE to employ falsehoods – such as the false claim that John wrote the Comma Johanneum in Greek as part of his first epistle – in the service of the truth. To continue to do so would be to run the risk that onlookers will conclude that the orthodox view of the Trinity is so weak that its defenders must adopt non-original readings in order to defend it.

I point out that few early theologians expressed their adoration of our triune God as competently as Gregory of Nazianzus and Cyril of Alexandria – yet they did not use the Comma Johanneum, because it was not the Greek texts that they used.
Third, we gain the time that would otherwise be wasted continuing to discuss a Greek textual variant which should be easily recognized as an interpolation.

Thank you for reading carefully.

 

[Steven Avery]

Michael Burris
Thank you James and Elijah for this excellent research. In light of it all, not even claiming to equal anyone’s understanding - in fact the opposite - the spoon being used doesn’t seem to be in the right jar of jam. Jerome told Damasus that he would only use the “Ancient Greek mss” for his translation work, and did he or did he not put the passage in the Vulgate? I know that Jerome’s letter to Eunomius was declared false, however, this passage has not been evaluated as such, and I guess the only other question is did Jerome actually put it in his work - Augustine actually preached the passage saying it was from John. Damasus, and Gregory also evidence the translation. Aside from the anti-climatic use of “oti” in the NAS, this matter of Jerome seems ironclad - unless something else there is known or found?

Hefin Jones
Michael Burris Gregory does not.

Hefin Jones
Michael Burris The consensus of scholarship is that Jerome is not the translator of any of the Vulgate New testament beyond the gospels. The Jerome preface to the Catholics is spurious (Pseudo-Jerome)

Hefin Jones
Michael Burris And Jerome, Augustine etc... all latin witnesses. Crickets from the greeks.

James E Snapp Jr
https://www.facebook.com/groups/302...77_ArRfKshOSLHpd1p_ysAj1B40o1g0F_&__tn__=R]-R
Michael Burris ,
<< Did he or did he not put the passage in the Vulgate? >>
He did not. Alcuin did, in the west in the days of Charlemagne.
<< Augustine actually preached the passage saying it was from John. >>
Augustine of Hippo (in Numidia) wrote in Latin. He consulted some Greek manuscripts of the Gospels. If he ever held a copy of First John in Greek I am not aware of it.

Michael Burris
James E Snapp Jr thank you James for that information. Honestly speaking, both Augustine and Jerome affirmed to each other the N.T. work (and grappled over the OT), how could Augustine have preached it without Jerome including it?
Also on an unrelate…
https://www.facebook.com/groups/302...77_ArRfKshOSLHpd1p_ysAj1B40o1g0F_&__tn__=R]-R

Hefin Jones
Michael Burris on Augustine. Again I think Eric Rowe has asked you for the reference. Let's grant that Augustine is speaking on 1 John 5.7b then you make an assumption that he's teaching from Jerome's text. Augustine had been an user

Eric Rowe
Michael Burris //Jerome told Damasus that he would only use the “Ancient Greek mss” for his translation work, and did he or did he not put the passage in the Vulgate? //
He did not.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/302...77_ArRfKshOSLHpd1p_ysAj1B40o1g0F_&__tn__=R]-R
Eric Rowe
Michael Burris //Augustine actually preached the passage saying it was from John.//
Please cite the exact reference where you have seen Augustine do this.

Eric Rowe
Michael Burris //Damasus, and Gregory also evidence the translation.//
Again, please cite your exact references for where you read this from those (as well as specify which Gregory you're talking about).

REMOVE nonsense ABOUT Caspar Rene Gregory

Hefin Jones
Michael Burris I'd appreciate seeing Gregory's quotes of The Comma from his Orations. Please show them. As you know from my prior comments I don't think Gregory quotes the Comma. So I do want to know if I am misunderstanding Gregory. Love to see the quotes (try to reference them as best you can... Minimally the oration number / name and the paragraph it is in)


Michael Burris
Hefin Jones I am presently going through them all and will give a link when completed.

Hefin Jones
Michael Burris ok. Look forward to it.do make sure your list is such that others can easily go to Gregory and see them in context. Thanks.

Eric Rowe
Hefin Jones and Hefin Jones which Gregory are we talking about here?

Hefin Jones
Eric Rowe I'm talking about Gregory of Nazanien whom Michael has been talking about on occasion. Your question is a fair one though. Might we we be talking of Gregory of Nyssa, or Gregory the Great, or Caspar Renee Gregory? That part of why I'm asking Michael to reference well as that might clarify matters...

Eric Rowe
Hefin Jones If he is talking about Gregory of Nazianzus, then not only does that Gregory not quote the comma, but he also remarks on the grammar of the shorter version of the passage in a way that proves he did not know the longer reading, as we discussed with another commenter here not long ago.

James E Snapp Jr
https://www.facebook.com/groups/302...77_ArRfKshOSLHpd1p_ysAj1B40o1g0F_&__tn__=R]-R

Hefin Jones
Eric Rowe indeed. I've pointed this out to Michael Burris and others before.