Re: [TruthTalk] Albert Einstein & Karl Barth

[Bill Taylor]

No, Kevin, I don't think the Greek speaking theologians were quoting the Latin. Latin theologians were quoting the Latin, but we already know this.     Here is the rest of the Nazianzus quote for any who may be interested:   Even though Gregory of Nazianzus (390 AD) does not testify to the authenticity of the Comma, he makes mention of the flawed grammar resulting from its absence. In his Theological Orientations he writes referring to John: . . . (he has not been consistent) in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourselves disclaim in the case of Deity? It is clear that Gregory recognized the inconsistency with Greek grammar if all we have are verses six and eight without verse seven. It seems that we may at least conclude from this that Nazianzus did not have the Comma in the Greek text that he was using. Moreover, it seems reasonable to think that if he had known about it, he would surely have used it in his arguments against the heretics. Nevertheless, it is not my intention to say one way or the other if it was in John's original epistle: I do not know. I don't think any of us do. Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 11:38 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Albert Einstein & Karl Barth No I do not think they were first written in latin. But these documents are witnesses none the less. They are also in some cases quite ancient. So do you think the Church Fathers in 300AD were quoting the latin? Bill Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Like I said, Kevin, I am familiar with both sides of this one. Do you think the epistles were first written in Latin? I wonder why it showed up in the Latin but not in the Greek until many centuries later?   Bill  ----- Original Message ----- From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 3:42 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Albert Einstein & Karl Barth Greek support: It is contained in 629 (fourteenth century), 61 (sixteenth century), 918 (sixteenth century), 2473 (seventeenth century), and 2318 (eighteenth century). It is also in the margins of 221 (tenth century), 635 (eleventh century), 88 (twelveth century), 429 (fourteenth century), and 636 (fifteenth century). It is a minority reading but that never stops the Critical text.   Latin support: It is in the vast majority of the Old Latin manuscripts, which outnumber the Greek manuscripts.   CHURCH FATHERS Cyprian (258 AD) knew of the Comma, "The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one' and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one'."  Treatises 1 5:423 Priscillian (385 AD) As John says "and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh, the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus." Liber Apologeticus.   Varimadum (380 AD) 90:20-21 "And John the Evangelist says, . . . 'And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one'." Also Cassian (435 AD), Cassiodorus (580 AD), Speculum (or m of 450 AD), Victor of Vita (489 AD), Victor Vitensis (485 AD), Codex Freisingensis (of 500 AD), Fulgentius (533 AD), Isidore of Seville (636 AD), Codex Pal Legionensis (650 AD), and Jaqub of Edessa (700 AD).  It is also found in the edition of the Apostle's Creed used by the Waldenses and Albigensians of the twelfth century.As you can see the reading has massive, ancient textual support apart from the Greek witnesses.   Pray tell how these men quoted something that did not exist in their time!   THE GRAMMAR of the GREEK ITSELF If we take out verse 7 then we have the poor Greek grammar of verses 6 & 8 Why are three neuter nouns supported with a masculine participle?   Gregory of Nazianzus (390 AD) . . . (he has not been consistent) in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourselves disclaim in the case of Deity? Fifth Orientation the Holy Spirit You are left with inconsistent Greek grammar if verse 7 is removed. This was the argument of Robert Dabney of Union Theological Seminary The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek (1891). Bishop Middleton Doctrine of the Greek Article AND Matthew Henry in his famous commentary.