John William Burgon - discussion of Acts 8:37, heavenly witnesses and his methodology (and some BVDB stuff)

[Steven Avery]

Matthew Murphy Rose
@Pure Bible "hints" on Acts 8:37? It's obvious that Burgon's methodology strongly rejects the Comma, and he seemingly implies as much in "The Last Twelve Verses of Mark." Unless a paper (or study) is done in which Migne is shown to nearly always agree with our newer critical editions of the Father's, no Academic interest will probably ever hover around Burgon's Index. (Unfortunately.) Personally, I've always wondered how/why his annotated copy of the TR never surfaced.

Steven
- not so obvious. If Burgon considered and saw the solecism it would lead to immediate acceptance of the full text. Similar to how he noted rejecting a variant in Luke 19:37 in B and D for grammatical reasons. Plus in general the heavenly witnesses does quite well in his Seven Notes of Truth. I do not understand your Migne comment. As for the index from Burgon, it should be used first for a few major variants, especially those not covered in his liaterature, like Acts 8:37 and the heavenly witnesses. Where is there a reference to the TR annotated copy?

Matthew Murphy Rose
@Pure Bible See "Traditional Text" pp. vi, 5. I strongly disagree. Burgon dismisses the Comma (c. 1871) as lacking sufficient evidence; and in 1881 he makes NO fuss over the omission of the Comma by the Revision committee. Nor does Miller bring anything of the sort (i.e. a defense of the Comma by Burgon) to light in "Causes of Corruption" or "Traditional Text."

Pure Bible
@Matthew Murphy Rose - you are missing the point. You were trying to decide the result of Burgon's methodology, properly applied. Unless Burgon specifically related to the "internal" evidences, especially the solecim (as did Eugenius Voulgaris, Frederick Nolan, Middleton, Nolan, Hales, Gaussen, Forster, Dabney and many others) we cannot say he was following his own methodology. As he gave in the Luke 19:37 (Traditional Text p. 65) example where grammar disqualified a reading. As for the seven notes of truth, if Burgon really knew all the evidences the verse would come out quite well. There is the general problem of difficulties in methodology of inclusion/omission verses, like when he flipped on Matthew 10:8. In general textual analysts have a blind spot there. Wrongly thinking it is just another variant like alternate texts. And the apparent flip on the Matthew doxology. This is one reason his British Library material could really help. We could see if Burgon really was up on the evidences of our two inquiry verses. See also the Treatise on the Pastoral Office p. 75-76. https://books.google.com/books?id=Fu0OAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA75 "affect neither faith nor practice"



discussion with Matthew Murphy Rose

 

[Steven Avery]

This is from the earlier post on the Matthew 10:8 Burgon flip (expanded here)
https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/matthew-10-8-raise-the-dead-burgon-flip.1717/#post-6586

As for the heavenly witnesses and Acts 8:37 and Burgon, that would require a separate post. I've never claimed or implied that his writing supports their authenticity, there is a bit of an awkward silence.

It is a very specialized topic, combining Burgon's general view of the Traditional and Received Texts, his notes of truth, the Griesbach turnabout phrase, and maybe material in the British Librrary could help.

Maybe I have a post on it, or could write one up.

Charles Vincent Dolman
https://books.google.com/books?id=hFwVAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA427

Griesbach turnabout (traditional ad hominem)

Revision Revised
http://books.google.com/books?id=nXkw1TAatV8C&pg=PA483

Last Twelve Verses quote
http://books.google.com/books?id=RgYQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA15

Michael Maynard touches on that in p. 221.

There is a spot where Burgon says that no real significant changes would occur with a TR update, I will have to find it, since it implies that Acts 8:37 and the heavenly witnesses would not be removed.

 

[Steven Avery]

Burgon
We would be helped if his color-coded section at the British Library could be studied!

Charles Vincent Dolman
https://books.google.com/books?id=hFwVAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA427

There is one textual omission, however, made by the revisers, for which even Dean Burgon has no word of condemnation. We refer, of course, to the well-known verse in St. John’s first epistle, about the Heavenly Witnesses. The brave defender of the integrity of St. Mark’s Gospel joins in the general surrender by Protestants of this verse to the continued assaults of textual critics. This surrender of one of the strongest defences of dogmatic truth is only too complete; and, strangely enough, it has been made just one hundred years after Gibbon sapped it with his “solemn sneer.” In thus surrendering, Dr. Alexander, the Protestant Bishop of Derry, who treats of St. John’s Epistles in the last volume of the “Speaker’s Commentary,” claims credit for what he calls “ the candour of Christian criticism.” We should prefer to call this characteristic feebleness of Protestantism against rationalistic attack, downright cowardice. It is all very well for Dr. Lightfoot to talk of there being other texts which prove the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity. But are they quite sure—it has been well said—that they have any text so clear or so strong as 1 John v. 7 ? Pearson found it needful in his exposition of the Creed; the Westminster Confession of Faith could not dispense with it. Dogmatic belief among Protestants is not so strong in these days that it can afford to give up the support of a single verse of Holy Writ. But it is not simply a question of giving up one among several texts; the mischief lies in the humiliating confession, drawn forth by Socinian pressure, that what Christians thought to be Scripture was only an interpolation ; that for centuries Christians had rested the central dogma of their faith on a spurious verse. The taunts which Anglicans uttered against the Catholic Church on account of the False Decretals will surely return upon their own heads.

Now, we maintain that this base surrender is not merely a crime, but that it is also a blunder; iuasmuch as they have surrendered at the wrong time—just when the case for the verse was at its strongest, and the hostile attack was growing feebler. Since the controversy first arose about this memorable verse, all fresh evidence has gone to support its authenticity ; and we maintain that the arguments in defence of the verse were never so strong as in this, the hour of Protestant surrender. We have no intention of indicting upon our readers even a summary of a discussion so old, so complicated, and so dry. Dr. Tregelles gives a list of some fifty or sixty treatises on this question alone. Erasmus and Stunica, Sir Isaac Newton and Bentley, Porson and Travis, Simon and Martyn, Griesback and Scholz, Burgess and Turton, are some of the combatants who figure in the strife. Our object is to bring forward some recent evidence in support of the disputed verse, and thus to show that the case is stronger than ever it was before.
....

Still, it is not well for Catholics to suppose that in this or any other controversy, evidence and authority are wholly opposed, or that textual critics have all the argument on their side.

...

It is, then, quite clear that, proving all things, Victor of Capua, in 540, approved the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles as the genuine work of him whose name is inseparably linked with that of St. Eustochium. In the presence of this fact, Dom Martianay’s arguments from internal grounds have but little weight.

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

Last Twelve Verses of Mark (1871)
http://books.google.com/books?id=RgYQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA15

This is more a turnabout phrase, the type of classical ad hominem that Burgon uses, that an analysis of any substance.

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

Revision Revised (1883)
http://books.google.com/books?id=nXkw1TAatV8C&pg=PA483

The question at issue being simply this,—Whether it is reasonable to suspect that the last twelve verses of S. Mark are a spurious accretion and unauthorized supplement to his Gospel, or not ?—the whole of our business clearly resolve itself into an examination of what has been urged in proof that the former alternative is the correct one. Our opponents maintain that these verses did not form part of the original autograph of the Evangelist. But it is a known rule in the Law of Evidence that the burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue 1. We have therefore to ascertain in the present instance what the supposed proof is exactly worth; remembering always that in this subject-matter a high degree of probability is the only kind of proof which is attainable. When, for example, it is contended that the famous words in S. John’s first Epistle (1 S. John v. 7, 8,) are not to be regarded as genuine, the fact that they are away from almost every known Codex is accepted as a proof that they were also away from the autograph of the Evangelist. On far less weighty evidence, in fact, we are at all times prepared to yield the hearty assent of our understanding in this department of sacred science.

Actually, weakly argued.

 

[Steven Avery]

Burgon is handling the affirmative issue incorrectly.

"in the Law of Evidence that the burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue"

This is improper use of affirmative point, which is really designed for debates, and either side can be the affirmative. And since the verse is historically scripture, as is the Mark ending, for hundreds of years in Greek and Latin texts, the burden of proof would be more on the non-authenticity side.

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

"the fact that they are away from almost every known Codex is accepted as a proof that they were also away from the autograph of the Evangelist."

Maybe to the decayed textcrits.
However not to the wonderful writers given in Charles Vincent Dolman above.

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

 

[Steven Avery]

MMR
"in the Law of Evidence that the burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the affirmative of the issue"
This is stated directly in regards to Mark 16:9-20—not I John 5:7-8. (Although implications are detectable I believe.)

in either case the affirmative can be authenticity of the verse or section
Or the affirmative can be non authenticity.

 

[Steven Avery]

MMR
Not when a fair shake is given to possession. (Or more properly, lack thereof!) -MMR]
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...and-the-comma-johanneum-t6320-s10.html#p81644

Which simply does not make sense.
Affirmative has to do with a proposition in a debate, and the sides can always be switched, by simply switching the words.

Affirmed : the heavenly witnessses text is authentic original scripture
Affirmed : the heavenly witnesses text is a later interpolation, not from John and is not scripture.

Please.

The burden of proof
The burden of producing evidence means that in general the party that cites specific facts for the substantiation of its claim also has the burden of producing the evidence to prove these facts. This burden depends on the substantive law governing the claim.

In the above, either side needs the evidence to support (prove) their position.

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

Then MMR brings over the text of our Snapp discussion, which is fine, and he simply did not understand the discussion.

e.g. I asked him

Can you name any Greek commentaries that are evidence for absence? After all, mss. are often simply copying exercises, while the writings of church scholars can give us a better insight. We also have Latin mss. that discuss the early church writers on the verse.

Remember we have 100+ Latin writers using and discussing the heavenly witnesses. And some scholars were skilled in Latin and Greek. So after 1200, do you have any Greek commentary or writer evidences against the verse authenticity?

He dodged the question. My next section is quite good.

Steven replies. 2/5/2020

Snapp Comments
https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2020/01/first-john-57-and-greek-manuscripts.html

Note we also discussed in 2021 on YouTube

Matthew M. Rose
"to overthrow the possession maintained by the overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts here"

Possession? Of What?
Definitely not non-authenticity.

"versional evidence is secondary in weight to the Greek manuscript evidence of the period."

Greek ms. evidence after 1000 AD is a minor evidence. The wide-ranging 100+ Latin commentaries and references are, to Bible believers, more significant. Shared information on inclusion always trumps an omission or an evidence from silence. Both have to be considered minor compared to pointing back to the era of 50 AD to 500 AD.

This nose-counting shows you that there the Greek ms. tradition from about 700 to 1500 tended strongly to omission. (Only a handful of extant mss. before 700 AD, so the true window is from church writings.) One ms. simply copied another with the inherited omission corruption. There was an important correction at the Lateran Council, widely disseminated to the churches, but only mild impact on scribal ms. copying.

The major correction came when the Greek Orthodox accepted the Reformation Bible text, such as the 1643 Orthodox Confession of Faith by Peter Mogilas. Powerful confirmation, followed by a good number of Orthodox writers. The keepers of the Greek manuscripts clearly understood that their manuscripts had been subject to the common problem of omission corruption, at the heavenly witnesses and also at Acts 8:37.

The scholar writings in Latin and Greek give us more insight into church usage than simply scribal copied manuscripts. Thus, in Latin, massive evidences, dozens upon dozens of references and commentaries. In Greek, the Lateran Council, Calecas and Bryennius for inclusion vs. nobody known,as you acknowledge, for omission. In fact, the Latin mss. and notes (e.g. Regensburg, Corbie, Haymo) and Aquinas in the earlier medieval period give us special insight into the perspective on Jerome and Augustine and Athanasius and Fulgentius.

And the Matthaei scholium shows us that the Greeks were aware of their solecism, and looked for a way out. (The Apostle John must have been thinking of the Trinity when he spoke of the spirit, the water, and the blood! ) This was affirmed by Erasmus with his clever "torquebit grammaticos". Then we have the wonderful grammatical information from Eugenius Bulgarius (1718-1805), telling us about the short text solecism from the perspective of the totally fluent world-class Greek scholar.

The Latin tradition clearly goes back to antiquity, from the Ante-Nicene period.

Jerome's Prologue to the Canonical Epistles testifies to early Greek and Latin mss having the verse, and a doctrinal uneasiness that let to omission. The objections to authenticity were frivolous (Antoine Genoud) largely based on a lateness that poofed away with the c. 1850 Fuldensis discovery.

Early evidences from the Greek include Origen, Eusebius ad Marcellum (which discomfit de facto supports Jerome's charge of scribal omission), the Athanasius Disputation at Nicea and the Synopsis of Scripture.

Parallelism, harmony, grammatical and various 'internal' evidences powerfully show the Greek text must have been the source of the Latin. James Snapp used to show some additional such evidences from Nathaniel Ellsworth Cornwall, these evidences are actually massive and mutually corroborative.

Nose-counting the Greek mss. starting around 1000 AD is funny, since it shows the textcrit error of over-reliance on one minor evidence. Elijah Hixson has been clueless on the heavenly witnesses evidences, since he was subject to the same textcrit indoctrination.

Time to study and learn!

Steven

And I really made efforts to help Matthew clear his mind of textcrit nonsense and start looking at this verse at least with a tabula rasa. He cannot do it, he always mechanistically goes back to unimportant Greek manuscripts, listing them, focusing on them, instead of trying to understand the two main competing theories of transmission.

At least MMR brought the above text over to the BVDB forum, where it can help a few readers, even while MMR struggles.

 

[Steven Avery]

And one last question for Avery: Was the comma in possession when Erasmus 'layed the egg'?

The heavenly witnesses verse was in dispute, largely due to the Erasmus hesitation. Even though he used the verse in two other writings, including his Paraphrase of John.

In trying to support his omission, Erasmus was extremely embarrassed by the Vulgate Prologue from Jerome. So he tried to suggest that Jerome had forged the verse! An absurdity.

Erasmus kept the Cyprian evidence under wraps, lest it destroy his opposition. Similar with the Disputatio contra Arium, although there it is possible that he did not know the writing. Newton to his credit gave more sensible perspectives on these two evidences.

Erasmus acknowledged the solecism problem and attempted a false funky dunky way out.

The Council of Carthage was not yet public.

As Charles Vincent Dolman pointed out in the 1800s, evidences continually cascaded in support of authenticity. The same was happening in the 1500s.

 

[Steven Avery]

An Historical View of Heretical Opinions -(1778)
Richard Turner
https://books.google.com/books?id=FUMFCCZW6qkC&pg=PR23
Richard Turner (1763-1788)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Turner_(writer)

While today some scholars may consider this as being written a century or so later than Nicea, that really changes little as to the power and sense of this Greek evidence. (Is the basic form of the text passed down? Likely.)

Thus, in the 300s and 400s, there were in fact Greek mss. with the verse. This is also proven by Jerome, and, earlier, even by the dual language capabilities of Tertullian and Cyprian and others. The solecism gives us another proof, along with a wide and powerful group of stylistic and internal evidences that support Greek authenticity.

The Synopsis of Scripture is also a fine Greek evidence.

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

Erasmus on Athanasius and Christology
https://books.google.com/books?id=Zbq4IzccPqwC&pg=PT398

Someone can be subject to a heretical error yet be dear to Christ if he errs simply out of a blameless ignorance. Arius was expelled for one or two words. The creed of Athanasius is daily recited in church 257 and yet he denies the catholicity of terms that theologians now consider correct. He denies that we may speak of three eternal Persons, three omnipotent, three uncreated, three immeasurable Persons, and believes that such terms are no less impious than saying that there are three gods. But today theologians hold a different view. For this is the same as many persons pulling a ship by means of one rope: many are pulling, but there is one action of pulling. In the same manner nothing prevents us from attributing to the divine Persons plurality in number although there is no diversity among the single Persons. Father and Son and Holy Spirit are wise, but it is the same wisdom. Three Persons have will, but it is the same will. Three foresee, but it is the same providence. They are three, but their essence is the same. Likewise in the one eternity three are eternal. Now when Athanasius denies that there are three eternal Persons, he nevertheless later says that there are three co-eternal Persons. Nor am I satisfied with what Durandus adduces concerning the difference between noun and adjective,258 ...

If three are eternal but are in the same eternity, what prevents us from saying that there are three Lords but one and the same lordship? I say this because there is no lack of renowned theologians who believe the expression 'three Gods but of the same godhead' can be used in a true and pious sense, that is, meaning there are three Persons, each one called God, but, as I said, of the same godhead as the others. Athanasius says 'for just as the rational soul and the flesh make one man, so God and man are one in Christ'259 - if we do not interpret this in an accommodating manner, it has a heretical meaning. Moreover, while Lee denies that there is a difference in greatness in the Trinity, Hilary does not avoid calling the Father 'greater.'260

 

[Steven Avery]

MMR

I already gave you above from the Rules of Evidence:

The burden of proof
The burden of producing evidence means that in general the party that cites specific facts for the substantiation of its claim also has the burden of producing the evidence to prove these facts. This burden depends on the substantive law governing the claim.

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

This comes down to the same situation as in the Debate examples.

Affirmed : the heavenly witnessses text is authentic original scripture
Affirmed : the heavenly witnesses text is a later interpolation, not from John and is not scripture.

If the issue were extraordinary:
Marcion's text preceded Luke
The text of 1 Corinthians 14:33b-35

In such a case, you could say that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Even there, the "scholars" might say otherwise about the first one.

A dropping of any widely accepted text is much more explainable and natural than its addition (the addition scenarios for the heavenly witnesses are really close to absurdity). Thus the natural position for all major variants is inclusion, Acts 8:37, 1 John 2:21b, heavenly witnesses, Luke 22:43-44, father forgive them, Mark ending, Periocope Adulterae, etc.

The simple fact is that the Reformation Bible has had the heavenly witnesses in virtually every language. The feeble attempt to dislodge the verse is a challenge, and has the burden of proof. Why accept the Hortian desecration of the pure Bible text?

If you want to start listing evidences, then I could likely number close to 1,000 affirmative Latin manuscripts, and some Greek and Armenian. Approximately 200 usages by church writers, compared to about five or ten that are clear negatives. The grammatical, sytlistic and internal evidences are probative as well. Some of the individual evidences, like Jerome's Prologue or the Council of Carthage, are worth hundreds of early manuscripts (which simply do not exist in the negative.)

Burgon was simply wrong because he wrote "Codex" when he meant "Greek Codex", two very different considerations. With the Mark ending it is true that virtually every Codex has the ending, (except for some Armenian and likely Georgian codexes.) So the difference does not come to play. And of course the worthless scholastically decayed textcrits would disagree today, since it is settled scholarship that the Mark ending is not original. Daniel Wallace, Elijah Hixson, Peter Gurry and others trying to foist corrupted versions on the churches.

With the heavenly witnesses, Burgon was simply wrong, there are c. 1,000 Latin mss with the verse, and massive corroborative evidences from the church writers. What he said for the Mark ending applies to the heavenly witnesses.

 

[Steven Avery]

Euthymius tries hard to show that he really knows nothing about the heavenly witnesses verse.

Euthymius
*Direct* quotation by Greek or Latin church fathers before the 14th century: zero
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...and-the-comma-johanneum-t6320-s20.html#p81660

The real number is likely over 50 extant, maybe 100, and then many more in the 1300s.

A sampling is here:
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...cept-and-discuss-the-heavenly-witnesses.1110/

We are working on coordinating the efforts with Mike, who has been going over those references.

 

[Steven Avery]

On the Epistle to Laodecia in Fuldensis, these bumbling BVDB folks try to make an analogy with the Vulgate Prologue.

Wow. Rock dumb analysis.
Oh, that was Bill Brown. No surprise. Have no idea what was the angle of Matt.

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...he-authenticity-of-1-john-5-7-t6020-s420.html

Fortinbras
According to M.R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament (1924) pages 478-479, the so-called Epistle to the Laodiceans exists only in Latin, the oldest copy is the Fulda MS written for Victor of Capua in 546. "It is wholly uninteresting and was merely written to justify or explain St. Paul's mention of the letter from Laodicea in Colossians 4:16." It consist entirely of phrases and paraphrases from canonical Pauline epistles. "It is not easy to imagine a more feebly constructed cento of Pauline phrases."

It appeared in the German Bibles printed prior to Luther's translation (1522).

The Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans.
https://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/E/epistles-spurious.html

 

[Steven Avery]

Bill Brown shows he is infected with the James Snapp confusion on the Mark ending

"If something is "lost" - just for the sake of argument let's say the last 12 verses of Mark - we can argue either that it wasn't intended to be kept OR that it was recovered OR that inspiration extended longer than folks want to admit. Here is where I actually agree with Snapp (if I'm reading him correctly - it's been awhile) that Mark didn't write it AND that's NOT a determinative issue given we have other sections of Scripture not written by the original authors of the books. In other words, you can hold Mark didn't write it AND that it's "original" so long as one isn't rigid in determining the meaning of the word "original." ... One can quibble with his hypothesis, but I'm pleased he basically concedes that non-Markan authorship of that section. And I also agree with him such is not determinative of canonicity OR of authenticity.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...ers-and-the-insanity-they-give-t6305-s60.html

Sawbones
I believe James Snapp has stated that the "Last 12 Verses of Mark" are ancient, canonical and "authentic" (both in accuracy and in acceptance by the early Church). I don't believe he represents them as having definitely been necessarily written by Mark, or at the exact same time as Mark 1:1 - 16:8

Euthymius
Robinson showed numerous Markan vocabulary and stylistic parallels between the main text and long ending in his Perspectives essay. . Could it perhaps be the case that an earlier *draft* ending by Mark himself was simply tacked on to an otherwise uncompleted 16:8 by someone else after Mark's imprisonment or death (similar to but not identical to Snapp's viewpoint)?

Why not simply accept what Maurice Robinson shows.
One book, authored by Mark

 

[Steven Avery]

More from Euthymius:

Bible Versions Disc Board-John Burgon and the Comma Johanneum

Obviously, and although I really wanted to hear it from the horses mouth, the question was more rhetorical than not. But for what it's worth, here's M

www.tapatalk.com

I would like to see what *actual commentaries* from Greek or Latin sources before the 14th century deal *directly* with the Comma and not merely some claimed questionable or debatable allusion to such. So far the results I have found are as follows:

Greek commentaries) = 0
Latin commentaries = 0

Correct me if I err....

C'mon .. corrected above.

Start with the big brouhaha with Joachim Fiore, to the Lateran Council, to Thomas Aquinas, and later to the Complutensian Polyglot. All specifically referring to the heavenly witnesses, and the interpretation. Aquinas wanted to lop off the last phrase in in verse 8, to lock in the ontological interp in v. 7.

The Schoolmen in general used the verse, and dozens of Latin scholars.

This patch is a start, already given above.
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...cept-and-discuss-the-heavenly-witnesses.1110/

Even Grantley McDonald gives about 15 from about 1100 to 1400 (you want to exclude the 1300s apparently.)

 

[Steven Avery]

Wisdom from Bill Brown after a long nothing about the Mark ending:

“Anyway, I've said a lot to say nothing”

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...-the-insanity-they-give-t6305-s80.html#p81684

 

[Steven Avery]

Beyond that, Bill tries to make an analogy between the Epistle to Laodecia and the Vulgate Prologue of Jerome.
All totally confused and absurd.

And I am still waiting for James Snapp, or even Grantley McDonald, or any scholar with some savvy, to take a public position explaining their arguments against the authenticity of the Vulgate Prologue.

Oh, I have been defending the Vulgate Prologue for well over a decade, more likely 15 years, I have no idea what you are referring to with 2015.

Bill Brown
This point only came about in 2015 because he decided to suddenly go with "Jerome wrote it"....

There is no time I ever believed it was not from Jerome. Bill Brown just makes stuff up.

RealBrian (brianrw) defended the authenticity here in 2002
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bibleversiondiscussionboard/jerome-on-1-john-5-7-8-t2593.html

The Prologue is chronologically correct, linquistically correct (even to his calling Eustochium "virgin of Christ" and the bullheaded conclusion), and circumstantially correct. Quite simply, there is no reason to question it's authenticity.

back in 2003 I was quite skeptical of the claim that it was not from Jerome

lists.ibiblio.org Mailing Lists -

lists.ibiblio.org

In 2005 there were good discussions in the Yahoogroups [textualcriticism] forum.

And then 2007 back here
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bibleversiondiscussionboard/porson-and-maynard-t791-s20.html#p8939
Although that is in some side issues like Scrivener and Fuldensis.

 

[Steven Avery]

Btw, MMR, I am happy to go point-to-point, as we did on YouTube.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...and-the-comma-johanneum-t6320-s20.html#p81680

Suggestion, here, or CARM or a forum to be named later.

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

oh, Bill Brown,
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...and-the-comma-johanneum-t6320-s30.html#p81690

just got my 2005 white BMW 325xi, 70k, on the road.
No glasses, have never needed them, near or far.

All by the grace of the Lord Jesus.

And did get a laugh at your latest sick posting.

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

Euthymius above, unanswered.

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

 

[Steven Avery]

Matt basically gives a concession speech, that Diodorius is a good evidence.

Diodorus' book: "Concerning the [subject] of one God in Trinity" could easily be based on any number of the well known and often appealed to texts at that same time period, such as Matthew 28:19-20 "of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit", (as an example) and/or John 10:30 "I and the Father are One" and many others without mentioning the Comma addition. Perhaps even 1st John 5:20 (another widely used proof text in works contemporary with Diodorus concerning the Trinity).

The mere mention of John the Evangelist's first Epistle in the near context of a reference to a book about the subject of the Trinity is not any sort of definite proof of either the existence of the Comma in any of Diodorus' writings or that this was the specific main subject of that particular work - without mentioning the actual wording of the Comma variant itself. There is just to many works about the Trinity during this time period (by far the great majority) that don't mention the Comma to warrant this sort of speculation.

 

[Steven Avery]

Above, Matt still does not understand logic and probability. Only one epistle book is mentioned out of 21. With the segue, same writing, or the contiguous next writing, to the One God in Three.

This is always the problem with Matt.
He can micro-manage geek nothings, and never sees the full and real context. We saw that with Eusebius.

And the Athanasius Disputation with Arius was in the same period and definitely uses the heavenly witnesses. That shows it was in some Greek manuscripts at the time. The Synopsis of Scripture as well. And of course the Vulgate Prologue of Jerome.

So there is no difficulty at all with Diodorus writing about the heavenly witnesses verse in 1 John. This is an evidence, one of many that relate to Greek manuscripts in this interim period after Nicea.

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

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...enticity-of-1-john-5-7-t6020-s430.html#p81695

Bill Brown - one typical sick post and then one saying he does not know anything about the pure Bible text.

 

[Steven Avery]

More really dumb stuff from Matt:

Avery who argues for a "pure" Vulgate line of transmission (from the Greek) is also forced to admit that this very same Latin line transmission is "error" prone (even in the Psuedographic Para-Text which is not Scripture) with the logical consequences that it is rather im-pure, therefore imperfect, and therefore defective as well.

If this Psuedographic Para-Text cannot itself be trusted as being transmitted to us in its original form and has "Scribal error"

More straw man stuff.

And a scribal error in the 400 AD Vulgate Prologue of Jerome, one letter, the tiniest variant, really would have nothing to do with the heavenly witnesses beautiful full parallelism verse in the New Testament. A verse where the true Latin "fixes" the solecism in the short text corruption.

If I am to be super concerned with one letter, it would be 1 Timothy 3:16 or the nonsense of Jesus being angry in Mark 1: 41, both disasters in the corruption versions.

The weed hacker is now the straw man grasper.

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

Correction .. 2 letters, which changes nothing.
Matt's argument above is simply dumb.

 

[Steven Avery]

Bill Brown
As I said - you wanna know why he's so bold behind the keyboard but cowardly regarding debate......stuff like you're showing here THAT HE CANNOT READ is what he's afraid of.

Actually, while I am not a fan of debates, I did have one recently with James Snapp on the authenticity of Sinaiticus. At least James does not dribble vulgar vitriol and other sick stuff.

James thought that he pulverized the Sinaiticus position.
However, those who listened to the debate had a different response.