1 John 5:7

[GodisonePerson]

Carlos keeps citing 1 John 5:7 as evidence that the Bible teaches the Trinity. But isn't this text a spurious addition to John's epistle?

Dan

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 06:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=147994#post147994)
GodisonePerson:

Carlos keeps citing 1 John 5:7 as evidence that the Bible teaches the Trinity. But isn't this text a spurious addition to John's epistle?

Dan

No it is NOT. If you have evidence which indicates otherwise, post it here and I will review it. But let me say that the arguments generally center around it was supposedly added my Erasmus in the 16th century.

Erasmus had just completed a translation of the Greek manuscripts, which did not contain the "Johannine comma" as 1 Jn 5:7, is called. Supposedly dastardly Trinitarians objected and Erasmus is said to have replied something like, "Show me one manuscript with the comma in it and I will include it." Then according to the legend a manuscript was produced, many say it was written just for this purpose, and Erasmus was bound by his promise. Now let us pause while the violins softly play "Hearts and Flowers" in the background.

Let us ignore for the moment that this entire fairy tale has been exposed as patently false by Erasmus' own writings on the matter. It is absurd to presume that one of the greatest Biblical scholars of his time would even make such a comment, in the first place, much less feel that he was bound to include something in a translation of the Bible, that he believed to be false. And if he did include the comma based on only one manuscript, would he not include a footnote so stating? Even our modern translations have explanatory footnotes, e.g. "The most reliable manuscripts omit this phrase.", etc.

[GodisonePerson]

No it is NOT. If you have evidence which indicates otherwise, post it here and I will review it. But let me say that the arguments generally center around it was supposedly added my Erasmus in the 16th century.

The evidence against this text being authentic is so overwhleming, I wonder where we should start. Let's begin with Bruce Metzger's textual commentary on the Greek NT. Metzger presents two lines of evidence that suggests the Johannine Comma is not authentic. The external evidence for the text being spurious is that "The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late rescension of the Latin Vulgate" (page 647).

Metzger notes that four of these eight manuscripts contain the Johannine Comma as a variant reading in the margin. The eight manuscripts are

61-Codex Montfortianus (from the early 16th century)

88-"a variant reading in a sixteenth century hand, added to the fourteenth-century codex of Regius of Naples."

221-"a variant reading added to a tenth-century manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford."

429-"a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Wolfenbuttel."

636-"a variant reading added to the sixteenth century manuscript at Naples."

918-dated sixteenth century

2318-an eighteenth century manuscript

After reviewing the internal probabilities for the genuineness of the passage, Metzger explicitly calls this text "spurious." I recommend his textual commentary, pages 647-49.


Let us ignore for the moment that this entire fairy tale has been exposed as patently false by Erasmus' own writings on the matter. It is absurd to presume that one of the greatest Biblical scholars of his time would even make such a comment, in the first place, much less feel that he was bound to include something in a translation of the Bible, that he believed to be false. And if he did include the comma based on only one manuscript, would he not include a footnote so stating? Even our modern translations have explanatory footnotes, e.g. "The most reliable manuscripts omit this phrase.", etc.

I'm not even taking the Erasmus route. MY procedure is to look at texts only. And the fact is that, as Metzger writes, "The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions" except the Latin. Metzger supplements this comment with an observation in The Text of the New Testament:

"Among the thousands of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament examined since the time of Erasmus, only three others are known to contain this spurious passage" (page 101).

These texts are a twelfth century manuscript (the Comma is written in the margin), Tisch. W 110 (16th century) and Greg. 629 (14th century).

Dan

[Thomas2003]

Dear Sir,

I would say the best authority I have ever read on this subject is Michael Maynard, he did his doctrinal thesis on 1 John 5:7-8 and published it in 1995.

I got a copy when he published it and his address at the time was Comma Publications, PO Box 1625, Tempe AZ 85281-1625

His work is entitled;

The Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8, A tracing of the Longevity of teh Comma Johanneum with Evaluations of Arguments Against its Authenticity.

He traveled all over the world, catalogued and examine every documentary source and reference known to man on the subject. It is 380 pages of documented proof that the Comma is geniune.

Cordially,

Thomas

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 10:34 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=148060#post148060)
GodisonePerson:

The evidence against this text being authentic is so overwhleming, I wonder where we should start. Let's begin with Bruce Metzger's textual commentary on the Greek NT. Metzger presents two lines of evidence that suggests the Johannine Comma is not authentic. The external evidence for the text being spurious is that "The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late rescension of the Latin Vulgate" (page 647).

Metzger notes that four of these eight manuscripts contain the Johannine Comma as a variant reading in the margin. The eight manuscripts are

Dan

Metzger is a highly respected Biblical scholar but he is not the beginning and the end of study of the GNT. Here are quotes from two of many sites I Have found online which address this matter.
”The second consideration is THE GRAMMATICAL ARGUMENT. The omission of the Johannine Comma leaves much to be desired grammatically. The words "Spirit," "water" and "blood" are all neuters, yet they are treated as masculine in verse 8. This is strange if the Johannine Comma is omitted, but it can be accounted for if it is retained; the masculine nouns "Father" and "word" in verse 7 regulate the gender in the succeeding verse due to the power of attraction principle. The argument that the "Spirit" is personalized and therefore masculine is offset by verse 6 which is definitely referring to the personal Holy Spirit yet using the neuter gender. The Epistles of John (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1978), p. 237n.] Moreover, the words "that one" (to hen) in verse 8 have no antecedent if verse 7 is omitted, [Marshall calls this construction "unparalleled," p. 237] whereas if verse 7 is retained, then the antecedent is "these three are one" (to hen).

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/authenticityof.htm
Here are about 18 very early documents which contain the Johannine comma. There are more than 30 more listed at the below linked site. It is far from settled that the comma is spurious.
Note 1: 1 John 5:7-8 fits the immediate context; in fact, it is an indispensable component of the surrounding verses. Metzger, in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, argues that "as regards intrinsic probability, the passage [The Johannine Comma] makes an awkward break in the sense." [1] Upon close examination of the immediate context, however, one finds that this assertion is far from true.For example, if the Comma is omitted, verse 6 and verse 8 are thrown together, "which gives a very bald, awkward, and meaningless repetition of the Spirit's witness twice in immediate succession." [2] Furthermore, the omission causes the concluding phrase of verse 8 (and these three agree in one) to contain an unintelligible reference. [3] What is "that one" (to en) to which "these three" are said to agree?In other words, "that one" in verse 8 which designates One to whom the reader has already been introduced does not have antecedent presence in the passage."Let verse 7 stand, and all is clear, and the three earthly witnesses testify to that aforementioned unity which the Father, Word, and Spirit constitute."[4] The passage makes absolutely no sense if the Comma is omitted.The phrase "in earth" in verse 8 as well as the entire ninth verse would also have to be knocked out to regain the sense because both infer that the "witness of God," as promulgated in the Comma, has already been introduced.

Note 2: 14 out of 20 manuscripts that contain Acts 8:37 also contained 1 John5:7. Acts 8:37 is an extremely crucial verse in regards to salvation of the Eunuch in Acts 8:36-38. Without Acts 8:37, the Eunuch is getting saved by baptism without first believing in Jesus Christ and contradicts every verse in the bible regarding salvation in Jesus Christ.

Note 3: Manuscripts with Acts 8:37 but without 1John5:7 are listed as follows: Codex C --- Ephraemi, fourth century; Complutensian Polyglott edition; quoted by Irenaeus---Second Century; P45; Codex K---Cyprius, 9th century, Greek 63
Note 4: The Holy Trinity---these three being one are easily shown in scripture in the verses of 1 Corinthians 12:3-6. Jesus is Lord (verse 3) by the Spirit of God, the same Spirit is also called the Holy Ghost in verse 4. It is the same Lord (verse 5). It is the same God (verse 6). All four verses are in referrence to one church---the body of Jesus Christ. Also, our Lord Jesus Christ Himself said "our" and "we" in referrrence to the heavenly witnesses---

John 3:11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

177 A.D. A writing in Greek---Anti-Nicene Fathers
Apologia of Athenagoras presented to Roman emperors.

"Who, then, would not be ashamed to hear men speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their distinction in order."

215 A.D. (25:1; CC2, 1195)
Tertullian. Adversus Praxean per RB

"And so the connection of the Father, and the Son, and of the Paraclete makes three cohering entities, one cohering from the other, which three are one entity" refers to the unity of their substance, not to the oneness of their number.

250 A.D. The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translation of the Writings of the Church Fathers down to A.D. 325
CYPRIAN. De catholicae ecclesiae unitate. (CSEL 3:215)
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."

380A.D. PRISCILLIAN Liber Apologeticus
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."

385 A.D. GREGORY OF NAZANZIUS
Theological Orations, His fifth oration was "On the Holy Spirit"

390A.D. JEROME prologue to the Canonical Epistles

"si ab interpretibus fideliter in latinum eloquium verterentur nec ambiguitatem legentibus facerent nec trinitatis unitate in prima joannis epistola positum legimus, in qua etiam, trium tantummodo vocabula hoc est aquae, sanguinis et spiritus in ipsa sua editione ponentes et patris verbique ac aspiritus testimoninum omittentes, in quo maxime et fides catholica roboratur, et patris et filii et spirtus sancti una divinitatis substantia comprobatur."

450 A.D. Anchor Bible; Epistle of John, 782
Contra Varimadum 1.5 (CC90,20-21)

"And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, The Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one."

450 A.D. De divinis Scripturis suie Speculum
(A collection of statements and precepts drawn from the Old Latin Bible (both Old and New Testaments). It has been attributed to Augustine, but this is not likely. Aland dates it c. 427. Except in editions associated with the Alands, it is usually cited as m of the Old Latin. In Paul at least, the text seems to be generally more primitive than the European Latin of the bilingual uncials. In the Catholics, it has many links with the text of Priscillian.)
Latin MS, also known as "m"
"and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one."note:

484 A.D. Victor of Vita
Historia persecutionis Africanae prov. 2.82[3.11], CSEL7, 60

485 A.D. Victor Vitensis
Historia persecutionis Africanae Provinciae 3.11 in PL58, 227C per RB
"there are three which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one."

500 A.D. Beuron 64 known as "r". (Sometimes labeled CODEX MONACENSIS)

CODEX FREISINGENSIS
"and the three are one which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, and the Word, and the Holy Spirit and these three are one."

527 A.D. FULGENTIUS
(Considered, after Amiatinus, the best Vulgate manuscript. Copied for and corrected by Victor of Capua. Italian text. The Gospels are in the form of a harmony (probably based on an Old Latin original, and with scattered Old Latin readings). Includes the Epistle to the Laodiceans.)
Responsio contra Arianos (Ad 10, CC 91) RB
"there are three who bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit. And the three are one being."

527 A.D. FULGENTIUS Contra Fabianum (frag. 21.4: CC 91A, 797)

"There are three who bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Son and the Spirit. And the three are one being."

527 A.D. FULGENTIUS De Trinitate(1.4.1; CC91A 636), per RB

"There are three who bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one being."

pre 550 A.D. JEROME

prologue to the Catholic Epistles. "Preserved in the Codex Fuldensis (PL 29, 827-31)." per RB.
Jerome writes in his prologue that the Comma (1John5:7-8) is genuine but has been omitted by unfaithful translators.

570 A.D. CASSIODORUS Complexionn. in Epistt. Paulinn.

"Moreover, in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one God."

583 A.D. CASSIODORUS

In Epistolam S. Joannis ad Parthos. (10.5.1; PL 70, 1373A)

employs "Son" in place of "Word." NOTE: Cassiodorus cited the Comma in his commentary.

http://www.1john57.com/1john57.htm

[Jaltus]

Sorry, but I think it is a marginal gloss added by a copiest to the text at a later date. All evidence points to it being the thought of an ECFer about the passage which was then added to certain manuscripts (especially the Spainish stream) which then influenced Erasmus into adding it.

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 03:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=148205#post148205)
Jaltus:

Sorry, but I think it is a marginal gloss added by a copiest to the text at a later date. All evidence points to it being the thought of an ECFer about the passage which was then added to certain manuscripts (especially the Spainish stream) which then influenced Erasmus into adding it.

I know, we have had this discussion on another forum, TOL. Mr Miacca. I would disagree and say "much of the evidence" rather than "all."

[GodisonePerson]

Dear OS

You posted a ton of information, but how much of it is relevant to this discussion? Obviously missing from your list was any ancient Greek texts that contain the Comma.

For an answer to the supposed grammatical difficulties that you mention, see Dan Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, page 332.

Another respected Greek grammarian, A.T. Robertson, also provides this data in Word Pictures of the NT:


For there are three who bear witness (hoti treis eisin hoi marturountes). At this point the Latin Vulgate gives the words in the Textus Receptus, found in no Greek MS. save two late cursives (162 in the Vatican Library of the fifteenth century, 34 of the sixteenth century in Trinity College, Dublin). Jerome did not have it. Cyprian applies the language of the Trinity and Priscillian has it. Erasmus did not have it in his first edition, but rashly offered to insert it if a single Greek MS had it and 34 was produced with the insertion, as if made to order. The spurious addition is: en twi ouranwi ho pathr, ho logos kai to hagion pneuma kai houtoi hoi treis hen eisin kai treis eisin hoi marturountes en th gh (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 last clause belongs to verse John 8. The fact and the doctrine of the Trinity do not depend on this spurious addition. Some Latin scribe caught up Cyprian's exegesis and wrote it on the margin of his text, and so it got into the Vulgate and finally into the Textus Receptus by the stupidity of Erasmus.

Dan

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 06:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=148651#post148651)
GodisonePerson:

Dear OS

You posted a ton of information, but how much of it is relevant to this discussion? Obviously missing from your list was any ancient Greek texts that contain the Comma.

For an answer to the supposed grammatical difficulties that you mention, see Dan Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, page 332.

Another respected Greek grammarian, A.T. Robertson, also provides this data in Word Pictures of the NT:

Dan

If you have some information pertinent to this discussion please post it here. I'm not going to Dan's book just to prove or disprove a point. And if you will go back to my earlier post. The ridiculous story about Erasmus placing the comma in his second edition, because of some sort of promise, has been proven false from Erasmus' own writing. In other words it never happened. It is a lie. Someone who wants to use that argument should get off their backside, do some real research and learn the facts.

"Obviously missing from your list was any ancient Greek texts that contain the Comma." which means exactly what? I have documented it as early as 215 AD, possibly 177 AD. Are there other passages in our modern versions which are not attested in Greek manuscripts?

[Jaltus]

Actually, it was added to the third edition, not the second. THe second edition only changed spelling errors with no change in the text.

Also, any post 1500 text is irrelevant in terms of the Greek text since Erasmus was essentially published by then.

Thus, there are only (IIRC) 4 Greek texts with it in the text originally and 4 with it as an emendation, the earliest of which is 12th C, IIRC (going off the top of my head, I'll give the details later).

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 01:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=149109#post149109)
Jaltus:

Actually, it was added to the third edition, not the second. THe second edition only changed spelling errors with no change in the text.

Also, any post 1500 text is irrelevant in terms of the Greek text since Erasmus was essentially published by then.

Thus, there are only (IIRC) 4 Greek texts with it in the text originally and 4 with it as an emendation, the earliest of which is 12th C, IIRC (going off the top of my head, I'll give the details later).

I stand corrected. I wasn't sure of the actual edition. I would have been safer to say, his next edition.
 

[AVmetro]

07-13-2003 @ 03:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=147994#post147994)
GodisonePerson:

Carlos keeps citing 1 John 5:7 as evidence that the Bible teaches the Trinity. But isn't this text a spurious addition to John's epistle?

Dan

I see no reason to appeal to 1Jn5:7 when you have another, undoubtably genuine text {Matt28:19} which not only carries a similar idea as the above but is much stronger as well.

God bless

[Thomas2003]

Thus, there are only (IIRC) 4 Greek texts with it in the text originally and 4 with it as an emendation, the earliest of which is 12th C, IIRC (going off the top of my head, I'll give the details later).

How many of these other texts are missing 1 John 5 entirely? And what about the ancient Syriac and Armenian manuscripts? Why do you exclude this mountain of evidence? The old Latin in the 5th Century has it as does the Syriac in the 6th.

If one gives the benefit of the doubt to the Holy Spirit instead of the benefit to higher critics the authentic figures, in an honest comparison (considering the words), for an early witness to 1 John 5.7f are still high.

This is because the claim of some 5000 greek manuscripts that don't have the verse are from the 10th century forward. Why not be honest and admit that of these 5000 greek manuscripts 4500 don't even have the entire chapter of 1 John 5. So, why don't you just dismiss the whole fifth chapter itself, why only a text that confirms the Trinity? The term "trinity" itself has been traced back to as late as 168 AD in a letter of Theophilus to Autolycus.

Giving the benefit of doubt to the Holy Ghost we discover that there are only 14 Greek manuscripts that omit 1 John 5.7f in the first 8 centuries - that is less than 3% of all hostile Greek manuscripts, and the majority omit 1 John 5 entirely.

Isn't it odd how higher criticis will scorn these "inferior and unreliable" manuscripts of the 10th century forward while simultaneously using 97% of their authoritative evidence against the Comma being derived from these very same "inferior and unreliable" manuscripts?

All this nonsense about Erasmus' challenge, which has been proven to be a lie, just adds to the critics slander. No where in Scripture does God indicate He will preserve His Scripture according to the requirements of the scholars union.


Cordially,

Thomas

[Ani Uriyah]

1 John 5:7

GodisonePerson:

Carlos keeps citing 1 John 5:7 as evidence that the Bible teaches the Trinity. But isn't this text a spurious addition to John's epistle?

Yes, 1st John 5:7 the way it is worded in KJV is an addition, and it was admitted by the Catholic Church, I wish I would have the papers of their confession.

I also hold that Matthew 1:18-25; Matthew 28:19; John 3:13; 1st Timothy 3:16 (and some others) was an addition the way it words it in KJV.

And I think the first three chapters of Luke have been temptered with, but it's not clear, except for certain areas in the three chapters.

[AVmetro]

Ani Uriyah stated:

Yes, 1st John 5:7 the way it is worded in KJV is an addition, and it was admitted by the Catholic Church, I wish I would have the papers of their confession.

I also hold that Matthew 1:18-25; Matthew 28:19; John 3:13; 1st Timothy 3:16 (and some others) was an addition the way it words it in KJV.

Actually, just compare the NASB (Trinitarian version) with the KJV and you'll see that in some if not all of the above cases, they agree ;-).

As for Matt 28:19, what is your evidence? Have you read the Didache? It is probably one of the earliest non-canicol writings as well as good evidence for the traditional reading of Matt 28:19-:

Now about baptism, baptize this way: after first uttering all of these things, baptize "into the name of the Father and of the son and of the holy Spirit" in running water. But if you do not have running water, baptize in other water. Now if you are not able to do so in cold water, do it in warm water. Now if you don't have either, pour water three times on the head, "into the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the holy Spirit." Now before the ritual cleansing, the baptizer and the one being baptized should fast, and any others who are able. Now you will give word for the one who is being baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand. -[Herbert W. Armstrong translation]

7:1 But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water;
7:2 but if thou hast not running water, baptize in some other water, and if thou canst not baptize in cold, in warm water;
7:3 but if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
7:4 But before the baptism, let him who baptizeth and him who is baptized fast previously, and any others who may be able. And thou shalt command him who is baptized to fast one or two days before. -[Charles H. Hoole translation]

Ani Uriyah stated:

And I think the first three chapters of Luke have been temptered with, but it's not clear, except for certain areas in the three chapters.

Do have evidence for such? Perhaps you could take your proposition to the 'Biblical Exegesis' forum and give us your case. I'd be interested in seeing it and who will interact with it.

God bless--IM

[Ani Uriyah]

Matthew 28:19: http://www.godglorified.com/matthew_2819.htm

As for Luke: http://pub63.ezboard.com/fbecomingtruetzaddikimfrm1.showMessage?topicID=16.topic

[Thomas2003]

Today @ 01:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=207147#post207147)
Ani Uriyah:

1 John 5:7


Yes, 1st John 5:7 the way it is worded in KJV is an addition, and it was admitted by the Catholic Church, I wish I would have the papers of their confession.

I also hold that Matthew 1:18-25; Matthew 28:19; John 3:13; 1st Timothy 3:16 (and some others) was an addition the way it words it in KJV.

And I think the first three chapters of Luke have been temptered with, but it's not clear, except for certain areas in the three chapters.


The Roman Catholic Church - well good grief, yes, we know that is the source of the dispute in the first place. The conception of 1 John 5 not being authentic is directly from their premises. So, how exactly would Roman Catholic denial of the Comma be anything but antecedent to this argument?

Thomas

[mickiel]

To bear witness of God, or reflect his glory, one of his power is radiant. How in the world of reason could a being as powerful as God, not have a reflection? Before God gets there, his Spirit is there. Humanly we have a reputation, it proceeds us. We have a shadow, it reflects our image. But our reflection IS NOT ALIVE, it is image. God is so powerful, his reflection is ALIVE. His image lives. As does everything about God lives. God is living energey personified. To know God is to know this life, he is giving it to reality. The one who teaches that God will not give life, simply does not understand him. God created life to abound MORE, as he himself does.

[EdJones]

The textual criticism of the NT must be according to the analogy of faith, and because of this it must be different from the textual criticism of any other book.

[Phantym]

[i]Are there other passages in our modern versions which are not attested in Greek manuscripts?[/b]

Yes. John 7:53-8:11 [the woman caught in adultery]

It is missing from most Alexandrians. 2 of the best of these [A and C] manuscripts were found to have not included it based on measurements, the majority of the rest simply do not have it.

[RevNeal]

I am a Trinitarian, however I do not believe that my theological stance on the issue should trump textual-critical principles regarding what should be retained in the Canonical Text as opposed to what should be viewed as a later addition to the apostolic text. In short ... I would LOVE the "Johannine Comma" to be original to the autograph of 1 John, however the textual evidence simply does not support its inclusion.

The following manuscripts of the Greek New Testament contain, in one form or other, the "Comma."

61 is a post-1st edition Erasmus GNT text, and therefore is dated to the 16th century.

88 is a 12th century minuscule with the Comma in the margin in a modern handwriting

221 is a 10th century minuscule with the Comma added in the margin (the marginal addition is dated to about 15th or 16th century)

429 is a 14th century minuscule with the comma, yet again, in the margin

*629 is a 14th century minuscule with the comma in the body-text (YEAH!!!! Finally!)

636 is a 15th century minuscule with the comma in the margin in a modern handwriting.

918 is a 16th century minuscle with the comma in the body text

And 2318 is an 18th century (ie, another POST Erasmus) minuscule with the comma in the margin of the text written in the Latin of the Clementine edition of the Vulgate.

So, what do we have?? MOST of the Greek manuscripts which are usually cited as containing the comma actually have the variant in the margin in a substantially modern hand. The OLDEST Greek manuscript with the variant in the body-text is ms. 629, which is a 14th century (1300s AD) manuscript. The marginal additions contain MUCH variation, reflecting having been copied and translated from the Latin Vulgate and, indeed, in one case (manuscript 2318) the variant is, itself, in the Latin of the Clementine edition! None of this speaks well of the Comma being original to the autograph of 1 John.

A remark was made, earlier, questioning the Manuscripts which should have the Comma, but don't. Here's a PARTIAL list of those manuscripts which contain 1 John 5, but lack the Comma in the body text.

P74 (7th century)
Sinaiticus (4th century)
Alexandranus (5th century)
Vaticanus (4th century)
K (9th century)
P (6th century)
Psi (8th-9th century)
048 (5th century)
049 (9th century)
056 (10th century)
0142 (10th century)
33 (9th century)
81 (1044 AD)
88 (12th century)
104 (1087 AD)
181 (11th century)
326 (12th century)
330 (12th century)
436 (11th century)
451 (11th century)
614 (13th century)
630 (14th century)
945 (11th century)
1241 (12th century)
1505 (1084 AD)
1739 (10th century)
1877 (14th century)
1881 (14th century)
2127 (12th century)
2412 (12th century)
2492 (13th century)
2495 (14th - 15th century)

The post-10th century miniscules in the above list are critically important because they come from a time when the Comma WAS present in the Latin text. Ecclesiastical pressure should have forced its inclusion, and seems to have done so in a few cases (see above and the remarks regarding the marginal additions), but a LARGE number of Greek New Testament MSS managed to avoid the pressure to add the Comma to the Greek Text. This speaks STRONGLY against the originality of the Comma.

So, where did it come from? I believe The Comma originated as a marginal addition to an Old Latin Manuscript of the New Testament sometime in the 3rd century, and then slowly spread through the Latin textulcopia. Our only known Old Latin exemplars to contain the Comma are:

m -- around the 5th century in the Catholic Epistles
p -- 13th century
c -- 12th -13th centuries
dem -- 13th century
div -- 13th century
q -- 7th century

Likewise, the Comma was lacking in the oldest editions of the Vulgate, but slowly got added -- first in the margin and then in the body-text -- of the Vulgate. None of this speaks well for the originality of the Comma in the Greek autographs of 1 John. The New Testament autographs were mostly (if not entirely) written in Greek; primary consideration as to what those autographs contained MUST be given to those manuscripts of the Greek New Testament which are the least-number of copy-generations removed from the autographs. Early copies of the New Testament found in Latin, Syriac, or some other language are helpful, but they cannot be ranked as being equal, even superior, to the oldest extant copies in the language of the Autographs.

Similarly, quotations from Church Fathers are also helpful ... but even quotations in Greek are of secondary authority when it comes to establighing the autographal reading. Why? Because, on more than one occasion, scribes have swapped out the version of the scriptural citation which the Church Father used for the version of the scriptural passage that the scribe knew and prefered. This happened in many ways, SOMETIMES by later scribes who would wash off the Father's version and write in the one they knew. Hence, there is some (sometimes significant) variation even in the version of text found in the Fathers' citations. Uncertainty regarding the originality of a Father's citation makes even the Greek-language quotations by Church Father's inferior to actual New Testament Manuscripts.

I hope this helps.

[Capt Mercury]

We should not use the 1 John 5:7, 8 txt to teach the trinity. It isn't needed. But that particular text is spurious, IMO.

As has been pointed out, it is only found in 8 manuscripts, and those all seem to be descended from Greek manuscripts which were back-translated from Jerome's Latin Vulgate.

OK, here's theNET note on the Comma Johanneum:
27tc Before toV pneu'ma kaiV toV u{dwr kaiV toV ai|ma (to pneuma kai to {udwr kai to |aima), the Textus Receptus reads ejn tw'/ oujranw'/, oJ pathvr, oJ lovgo", kaiV toV a{gion pneu'ma, kaiV ou|toi oiJ trei'" e{n eijsi. 5:8 kaiV trei'" eijsin oiJ marturou'nte" ejn th'/ gh'/ ("in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth"). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence-both external and internal-is decidedly against its authenticity. For a detailed discussion, see B. M. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 647-49. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence. This longer reading is found only in eight late mss, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these mss (2318, 221, and [with minor variations] 61, 88, 429, 629, 636, and 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest ms, codex 221 (10th century) includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek ms until the 1500's; each such reading was apparently composed after Erasmus' Greek NT was published in 1517. Indeed, the reading appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either ms, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until a.d. 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant, since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. The reading seems to have arisen in a 4th century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus' Greek NT because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared, there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek mss that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written in c. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this ms sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text, as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever mss he could for the production of his text. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: he did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold. Modern advocates of the Textus Receptus and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings-even in places where the TR/Byzantine mss lack them. Further, these advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. (Of course, this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text.) In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum did not appear until the 16th century in any Greek mss and yet goes back to the original text? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: faith must be rooted in history. Significantly, the German translation of Luther was based on Erasmus' second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza's 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus' third and later editions (and Stephanus' editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others.

So I'll take Dr. Daniel Wallace's opinion on the origin of this text. OldShepherd earlier posted that thisstory was a "fairy tale." Did you note that not a single copy of a Greek manscript before the 1500s can be found that contains this text?

We don't need to rely on this text IOT show the truth of the trinity.

CM

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 08:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=275116#post275116)
Capt Mercury:


Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: he did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold.

So I'll take Dr. Daniel Wallace's opinion on the origin of this text. OldShepherd earlier posted that thisstory was a "fairy tale." Did you note that not a single copy of a Greek manscript before the 1500s can be found that contains this text?

We don't need to rely on this text IOT show the truth of the trinity.

CM

The use of quotation marks signifies a direct quote. Please show us where I ever used the words "fairy tale?" Your post seems to give the impression that I was disagreeing with the GREAT Dr. Wallace. Please show us where?

What I said was false was the oft told tale that Erasmus made some sort of promise that if "one Greek text could be found with the comma" he would include it in his next edition. And that a manuscript was made to order, so he felt bound by his promise. This tale has been refuted from Erasmus' own writings. It never happened. And OBTW the exact same story is told about Tyndale.

"Did you note that not a single copy of a Greek manscript before the 1500s can be found that contains this text?" [font=georgia][size=3]Relevance? Is it not attested by the ECF as early as about 177 AD?

First the Tyndales source and some sources which refute the Erasmus promise nonsense.
http://www.sundaylaw.net/books/other/standish/bibletrans/mbtu26.htm

Erasmus' role in the debate over these verses had been distorted by enemies of the AV. The standard position that liberals assume reads something as follows, given by AV-critic James White:

"When the first edition of Erasmus' work came out in 1516 . . . (I John 5:7,8) was not in the text for a very simple reason: it was not found in any Greek manuscript of I John that Erasmus had examined. Instead, the phrase was found only in the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus rightly did not include it in the first or second editions. The note in the Annotations simply said, 'In the Greek codex I find only this about the threefold testimony: 'because there are three witnesses, spirit, water and blood.' ' His reliance upon the Greek manuscripts caused quite a stir . . . Since Erasmus had promised, in his response to Edward Lee, to include the passage should a Greek manuscript be found that contained it, he was constrained to insert the phrase in the third edition when presented with an Irish manuscript that contained the disputed phrase." (4)

This is furthered by Stewart Custer of Bob Jones University:

"Now Erasmus made a rash promise. He said, 'If you can show me a Greek manuscript that has the text in it, I will print it there' . . . They went back and summoned their scribes and got them to translate the Latin Vulgate into Greek and put that verse in. (It) came right back to him. The ink was hardly dry on the manuscript . . . those two manuscripts are 61 . . . the date is 16th century, the time of Erasmus. The other one is 629 . . . Those are the only two manuscripts out of those 5000 that have verse 7 in it . . . Told him frankly that if he didn't put that verse in, they'd excommunicate him. He, being a good Roman Catholic, put it in." (5)

Both White and Custer are in error! Now for the facts:

1. On the "fact" that Erasmus made a rash promise, this was demonstrated to be false. This remark is one of the cherished legends about the history of New Testament scholarship. It is no more than a legend. Erasmus did not put the verses in his third edition on the basis of any supposed promise to Edward Lee. (6) Even Bruce Metzger admitted that Erasmus' "promise" needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H.J. de Jonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies, who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion. (7)

2. Was the ink hardly dry on 61, as Custer claimed? Erasmus didn't see it until a year after it was produced. Custer simply exaggerated. (8)

3. What of Custer's claim that there were only 2 manuscripts that contained the verse? R.E. Brown said a year earlier than Custer (1982) that there were 8 manuscripts. And it wasn't "5000" manuscripts as Custer claimed for, as of 1982, only 498 Greek manuscripts had been examined and in eight of them, the verses are found. (9) How could Custer assume the other 4500 manuscripts did not have the verses?

4. Was Erasmus threatened with excommunication? No evidence exists of it (10) because by the time of the third edition, he had found sufficient evidence to include it. Erasmus initially defended his omission of the verses as late as October, 1524. He had changed his views sometime between 1522-1527. (11)

http://watch.pair.com/erasmus.html

Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 1 (Spring 1996): 35–53

ERASMUS AND THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS

by

William W. Combs *

One of Erasmus’ critics was Diego López Zúñiga (better known by his Latin name, Stunica), who was one of the editors of the Complutensian NT. The Complutensian NT had included 1 John 5:7, though they translated it from Latin into Greek. Stunica could never cite any Greek manuscript which included the text, but only argued that Latin manuscripts were more reliable than Greek.64 Another critic was Edward Lee, who was later to become Archbishop of York. Lee accused Erasmus of encouraging Arianism. “Latin Christians since the early Middle Ages had considered this passage the clearest scriptural proof of the doctrine of the Trinity.”65 But Erasmus had excluded it from his first two editions because he found it in “no Greek manuscript, few Latin manuscripts of antique vintage, and only rarely in patristic works. He cited with approval the opinion of St. Jerome, that Latin copyists had introduced the passage on their own in order to refute the Arians and provide scriptural support for Trinitarian doctrine.”66

In the many retellings of this famous episode, it has become the common tradition that Erasmus rashly made a promise to his critics that he would include the Comma if a single Greek manuscript could be brought forward as evidence.67 However, Henk J. de Jonge has recently demonstrated that nothing in Erasmus’ writings indicates he formally made such a promise.68 DeJonge suggests that the notion of a promise came from a misinterpretation of a passage in a 1520 response to Edward Lee (Responsio ad Annotationes Eduardi Lei). Erasmus wrote: If a single manuscript had come into my hands, in which stood what we read (sc. in the Latin Vulgate) then I would certainly have used it to fill in what was missing in the other manuscripts I had. Because that did not happen, I have taken the only course which was permissible, that is, I have indicated (sc. in the Annotationes) what was missing from the Greek manuscripts.69

De Jonge suggests that Erasmus included the Comma Johanneum because he did not want his reputation ruined over a minor detail in the Greek text that might prevent his Latin translation from receiving wide distribution. When Erasmus was informed that the passage had been found in Codex 61, a 16th century manuscript then in England, he included it, though he notes in his Annotationes that he did not believe the Comma was genuine.70

Another part of this episode has also been incorrectly reported. Again, Metzger, among others, has said that Erasmus believed that Codex 61 “had been prepared expressly in order to confute him.”71 And Harris has shown that Codex 61 was, in fact, probably produced at the time of the controversy for the purpose of refuting Erasmus.72 But Erasmus himself had a different theory as to why Codex 61 contained the Comma. He believed that the Codex, like many other manuscripts, contained a text which had been revised after, and adapted to, the Vulgate. This was one of Erasmus’ stock theories, to which he repeatedly referred in evaluating Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. He regarded manuscripts which deviated from the Byzantine text known to him, and showed parallels with the Vulgate, as having been influenced by the Vulgate.73 Erasmus continued to include the Comma in his later editions.74

www.dbts.edu/media/journals/1996_1/ERASMUS.PDF

[Capt Mercury]

OldShepherd,

Whoa Nellie. I wasn't attacking you, OS. You misread my post. I did refer to only the supposed Erasmusian promise to add that spurious text if he could be shown a Greek text which included it. The Greek text which he did have which included the comma was dated in the 16th century - when he was alive. True I was saying that such a promise did indeed happen. I had read about it from Metzger, whom I respect in the field of textual criticism. But I was saying that I would take Dr. Wallace's opinion on what happened regarding Erasmus, as he has spent much time investigating and publishing in the area of textual criticism as well.

In your post you were clearly disagreeing with the political pressure for Erasmus to add that text. I was not disputing whether Erasmus had made such a promise, as Wallace's comments did not address that. I appreciate your historical stuff as I've not seen that before.

So then, are you in agreement with Dr. Wallace, then? You said,
"Your post seems to give the impression that I was disagreeing with the GREAT Dr. Wallace. Please show us where?" (direct quote again.) So you are in complete agreement with Dr. wallace? Because if you are, then I don't see how you can see the Comma Johanneum to be anything else but spurious. It seemed obvious to me from your earlier post that you were in disagreement with Dr. Wallace, but if I've misrepresented you I apologize, but please just answer that question: Are you in complete agreement with the quoted Wallace text below?

Quoting Dr. Wallace:
The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus' Greek NT because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared, there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek mss that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written in c. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this ms sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521.


The use of quotation marks signifies a direct quote. Please show us where I ever used the words "fairy tale?"

OS said:

"Let us ignore for the moment that this entire fairy tale has been exposed as patently false by Erasmus' own writings on the matter."
OS, I was being respectful of you. But I have received my share of blasts from KJO adherrants, so I'll just take this as "par for the course," I guess.

You know little about me yet. FYI, I support the majority text... not the textus receptus as you apparently do, true, but not the Alexandrian text either. The TR is in the majority text family, though it certainly has its flaws, of course, since Erasmus was only human, and he had a limited number of Greek texts from which to work.

My objection is not to the use of the KJV by those who prefer it... but to the claim that it, in English, is infallible. So are you KJ-only, or do you just prefer it over other Bibles & aso believe that the Comma Johanneum is legitimate?

BTW, I've also learned that KJ-only guys can't be reasoned with, so I guess I'll not continue on in this thread, because there's no need to upset any KJ-only people lurking or posting on this thread. Some of the posts by others dealing with exactly which manuscripts had the comma & which of those has the comma in the margin, etc.. were excellent. Thx. for the info..

Thx,

Capt :flaming: (barbecued CM)

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 07:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=277932#post277932)
Capt Mercury:

OldShepherd,

Whoa Nellie. I wasn't attacking you, OS. You misread my post. I did refer to only the supposed Erasmusian promise to add that spurious text if he could be shown a Greek text which included it. The Greek text which he did have which included the comma was dated in the 16th century - when he was alive. True I was saying that such a promise did indeed happen. I had read about it from Metzger, whom I respect in the field of textual criticism. But I was saying that I would take Dr. Wallace's opinion on what happened regarding Erasmus, as he has spent much time investigating and publishing in the area of textual criticism as well.

In your post you were clearly disagreeing with the political pressure for Erasmus to add that text. I was not disputing whether Erasmus had made such a promise, as Wallace's comments did not address that. I appreciate your historical stuff as I've not seen that before.

So then, are you in agreement with Dr. Wallace, then? You said, (direct quote again.) So you are in complete agreement with Dr. wallace? Because if you are, then I don't see how you can see the Comma Johanneum to be anything else but spurious. It seemed obvious to me from your earlier post that you were in disagreement with Dr. Wallace, but if I've misrepresented you I apologize, but please just answer that question: Are you in complete agreement with the quoted Wallace text below?

Quoting Dr. Wallace:

OS said:

OS, I was being respectful of you. But I have received my share of blasts from KJO adherrants, so I'll just take this as "par for the course," I guess.

You know little about me yet. FYI, I support the majority text... not the textus receptus as you apparently do, true, but not the Alexandrian text either. The TR is in the majority text family, though it certainly has its flaws, of course, since Erasmus was only human, and he had a limited number of Greek texts from which to work.

My objection is not to the use of the KJV by those who prefer it... but to the claim that it, in English, is infallible. So are you KJ-only, or do you just prefer it over other Bibles & aso believe that the Comma Johanneum is legitimate?

BTW, I've also learned that KJ-only guys can't be reasoned with, so I guess I'll not continue on in this thread, because there's no need to upset any KJ-only people lurking or posting on this thread. Some of the posts by others dealing with exactly which manuscripts had the comma & which of those has the comma in the margin, etc.. were excellent. Thx. for the info..

Thx,

Capt :flaming: (barbecued CM)

I am not KJVO. I am disagreeing with Wallace to some degree because of this statement which I quoted before. DeJong, referenced below, who seems to have researched the matter much more thoroughly than Wallace says nothing about political concerns and Wallace only says probably. Also Wallace appears to have quoted DeJong, i.e. "he did not want his reputation ruined.," but omitted "over a minor detail in the Greek text."


Wallace: Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: he did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold.

]My objection to the "fairy tale" comment was it appears to have me calling Wallace's comments a "fairy tale. As I clearly said when I made the statement it was the so-called promise and the manuscript made to order story that was a fairy tale.


So I'll take Dr. Daniel Wallace's opinion on the origin of this text. OldShepherd earlier posted that thisstory was a "fairy tale."


De Jonge suggests that Erasmus included the Comma Johanneum because he did not want his reputation ruined over a minor detail in the Greek text that might prevent his Latin translation from receiving wide distribution.

[Capt Mercury]

OS,

Thx for your gracious reply.

So you believe the Comma to likely be genuine? I do accept some of the disputed texts, such as John 8, but not others in the TR, FYI, such as the Mark ending, the addition to Rom. 8:1, etc..

Do you support the TR or just the majority text type in general?

Just curious.

Thx,

Cap

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 12:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=279213#post279213)
Capt Mercury:

OS,

Thx for your gracious reply.

So you believe the Comma to likely be genuine? I do accept some of the disputed texts, such as John 8, but not others in the TR, FYI, such as the Mark ending, the addition to Rom. 8:1, etc..

Do you support the TR or just the majority text type in general?

Just curious.

Thx,

Cap

For me the jury is still out. There has not been sufficient evidence produced, for me, to say conclusively that the comma is spurious. There is still quite a bit of early patristic support for it, which in my opinion, has not been effectively dealt with.

I have not formulated an opinion on TR vs MT. I leave those discussions to the scholars, they seem to have the time for such things. I usually start with KJV, because I grew up with it and have a pretty good idea where things are in it. I then switch to a more modern version for teaching and preaching because my audiences have many people for whom English is a second language and the KJV is difficult to impossible for them to understand.

[Socrates]

10-22-2003 @ 07:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=251385#post251385)
RevNeal:

I am a Trinitarian, however I do not believe that my theological stance on the issue should trump textual-critical principles regarding what should be retained in the Canonical Text as opposed to what should be viewed as a later addition to the apostolic text. In short ... I would LOVE the "Johannine Comma" to be original to the autograph of 1 John, however the textual evidence simply does not support its inclusion.

I'm totally with RevNeal here. And as I've said before, it's counterproductive to argue for the Trinity from such a tenuous foundation as the Comma. Why do it, when there is such overwhelming proof in undisputed parts of the NT? None other than Bruce Metzger, the leader of the committee that produced the NU/UBS critical text, points out in some of this evidence in his interview in Lee Strobel's book The Case for Christ.

[Capt Mercury]

Today @ 03:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=281164#post281164)
OldShepherd:


For me the jury is still out. There has not been sufficient evidence produced, for me, to say conclusively that the comma is spurious. There is still quite a bit of early patristic support for it, which in my opinion, has not been effectively dealt with.

I have not formulated an opinion on TR vs MT. I leave those discussions to the scholars, they seem to have the time for such things. I usually start with KJV, because I grew up with it and have a pretty good idea where things are in it. I then switch to a more modern version for teaching and preaching because my audiences have many people for whom English is a second language and the KJV is difficult to impossible for them to understand.

OS,

Seems reasonable. I do wish that the NKJV had been based on the Hodges-Farstad Greek Majority Text that was already out at the time of its development instead of just the TR.

I have done a little research on the John 8 pericope, & consider it likely to be legitimate, though there are certainly strong arguments on both sides for that text. Either side you take on that text "you've got some splainin to do." So my case is based more on internal arguments in that instance.

Thx,

Cap

[Waterrock]

I *tried* to avoid entering this thread; really, i tried. But I fear I have developed a magnetism toward text-critical discussions.

In case it's not already perfectly clear: Dr. Bruce Metzger's claim that Erasmus made some sort of rash promise to include the Comma Johanneum if it were found in a single Greek manuscript is *fictitious.* Metzger (and A.T. Robinson) probably got the story from Ezra Abbot, who wrote and taught in the late 1800's.

Metzger admitted his data was incorrect and withdrew his claim (as I have previously pointed out here at TheologyWeb), in a footnote in the appendix of the 3rd edition of "Text of the New Testament."

It *is* a fairy tale, a fabrication, a thing-that-did-not-occur.

Yet the NET refers readers to Metzger's "Textual Commentary" for information about the C.J. In "Textual Commentary," Metzger refers the reader to "Text of the New Testament," which has the fictitious story (and, in the 3rd edition, a statement admitting that it is false, too -- tucked away in a footnote in an appendix).

Also, James White has been informed -- months ago -- about all this. Has anybody noticed any change in the info disseminated at his website regarding the C.J.?

I currently do not disagree with the decision to declare the C.J. not genuine. But it seems to me that the main reason why there is so much agreement about the C.J.'s non-original nature is that so many people have been misinformed, and continue to be misinformed, by echoes of Metzger's fictitious story. And that bothers me.

It also bothers me that in this case, in which the Critical Text advocates have the majority of manuscripts on their side, suddenly numbers matter after all. Do people simply not know that the Critical Text of the New Testament (NA-27) contains a reading which is found in *no* manuscripts?? [In Acts 16:12.]

And it bothers me that it's hard to get a straight answer about the number of extant Greek manuscripts of First John 5 from the resources that pronounce against the C.J.

And it bothers me that the Old Latin suddenly seems irrelevant in the discussions of the C.J.

And it bothers me that extreme measures have been taken to present Cyprian's statement as not-a-quotation. It sure looks like a quotation to me.

It also bothers me that Captain Mercury can somehow say "I support the majority text" and then say that he does not accept Mark 16:9-20 ("I do accept some of the disputed texts, such as John 8, but not ... the Mark ending").

Yours in Christ,

Waterrock

[Waterrock]

I asked this question; it took just a few minutes to find the answer:

At http://www.aomin.org/erasmus.html Dr. James White continues to spread the fictitious story about Erasmus. Who knows how many people have visited his website and believed this falsehood, and proceeded to teach it to others??

See the paragraph which begins with "The most famous textual “problem” involved in Erasmus’s work was 1 John 5:7, the famous Comma Johanneum."

Yours in Christ,

Waterrock

[AVmetro]

Waterrock:

I asked this question; it took just a few minutes to find the answer:

At http://www.aomin.org/erasmus.html Dr. James White continues to spread the fictitious story about Erasmus. Who knows how many people have visited his website and believed this falsehood, and proceeded to teach it to others??

See the paragraph which begins with "The most famous textual “problem” involved in Erasmus’s work was 1 John 5:7, the famous Comma Johanneum."

Yours in Christ,

Waterrock

Did you attempt to inform them through email? I've tried to email A&O in the past with no reply. I don't think it's because they ignore inquiries - just that some ministries feel the need to stick with higher priorities. One method of contacting Dr. White (and others involved with the ministry) is to log onto the #prosapologian mIRC chat channel. Just follow the link on the A&O webpage, download the software provided at the link given and follow the instructions from there.

God bless--AV

[Waterrock]

AVMetro ~

AVM: "Did you attempt to inform them through email?"

Yes. We briefly corresponded. As I recall I provided the exact page-numbers in "Text of the New Testament's" 3rd edition where Metzger withdraws the story. [I.e., footnote #2 at the bottom of page 291.]

As you said, "some ministries feel the need to stick with higher priorities." But imho the truth ought to be a high priority, especially to someone who often points out inaccuracies in the writings of others.

Yours in Christ,

Waterrock

[barryrob]

Dear Sir,

I would say the best authority I have ever read on this subject is Michael Maynard, he did his doctrinal thesis on 1 John 5:7-8 and published it in 1995.

I got a copy when he published it and his address at the time was Comma Publications, PO Box 1625, Tempe AZ 85281-1625

His work is entitled;

The Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8, A tracing of the Longevity of teh Comma Johanneum with Evaluations of Arguments Against its Authenticity.

He traveled all over the world, catalogued and examine every documentary source and reference known to man on the subject. It is 380 pages of documented proof that the Comma is geniune.

Cordially,

Thomas
THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARY COMMENTARY CLARKE’S COMMENTARY NT, VOLUME 6B I THESS. - REVELATION by Adam Clarke. AGES Software Albany, or USA Version 2.0 © 1996, 1997


THE NEW TESTAMENTOF OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST THE TEXT CAREFULLY PRINTED FROM THE MOST CORRECT COPIES OF THE PRESENT AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION, WITH A COMMENTARY AND CRITICAL NOTES; DESIGNED AS A HELP TO A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE SACRED WRITINGS BY ADAM CLARKE, LL.D., F.S.A., etc FOR WHATSOEVER THINGS WERE WRITTEN AFORETIME FOR OUR LEARNING; THAT WE, THROUGH PATIENCE AND COMFORT OF THE SCRIPTURES, MIGHT HAVE HOPE.- ROMANS 15:4


VOLUME VI(B) THESSALONIANS TO THE REVALATION.


SAGE Software Albany, Oregon 1996


The following is from the above pages 904 - 907





"Verse 7. There are three that bear recordÑ The FATHER, who bears testimony to his Son; the WORD or logov, Logos, who bears testimony to the Father; and the HOLY GHOST, which bears testimony to the Father and the Son. And these three are one in essence, and agree in the one testimony, that Jesus came to die for, and give life to, the world.





But it is likely this verse is not genuine. It is wanting in every MS. of this epistle written before the invention of printing, one excepted, the Codex Montfortii, in Trinity College, Dublin: the others which omit this verse amount to one hundred and twelve.





It is wanting in both the Syriac, all the Arabic, AEthiopic, the Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, Slavonian, etc., in a word, in all the ancient versions but the Vulgate; and even of this version many of the most ancient and correct MSS. have it not. It is wanting also in all the ancient Greek fathers; and in most even of the Latin. The words, as they exist in all the Greek MSS. with the exception of the Codex Montfortii, are the following:—





"6. This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness because the Spirit is truth. 7. For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one. 9. If we receive the witness of man, the witness of God is greater, etc."





The words that are omitted by all the MSS., the above excepted, and all the versions, the Vulgate excepted, are these:—


([In heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holq Spirit, and these three are one, and there are three which bear witness in earth.])





To make the whole more clear, that every reader may see what has been added, I shall set down these verses, with the inserted words in brackets.





"6. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7. For there are three that bear record ([in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holq Ghost, and these three are one. 8. And there are three that bear witness in earth,]) the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and these three agree in one. 9. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater, etc." Any man may see, on examining the words, that if those included in brackets, which are wanting in the MSS. and versions, be omitted, there is no want of connection; and as to the sense, it is complete and perfect without them; and, indeed much more so than with them. I shall conclude this part of the note by observing, with Dr. Dodd, "that there are some internal and accidental marks which may render the passage suspected; for the sense is complete, and indeed more clear and better preserved, without it. Besides, the Spirit is mentioned, both as a witness in heaven and on earth; so that the six witnesses are thereby reduced to five, and the equality of number, or antithesis between the witnesses in heaven and on earth, is quite taken away. Besides, what need of witnesses in heaven? No one there doubts that Jesus is the Messiah; and if it be said that Father, Son, and Spirit are witnesses on earth, then there are five witnesses on earth, and none in heaven; not to say that there is a little difficulty in interpreting how the Word or the Son can be a witness to himself."





It may be necessary to inquire how this verse stood in our earliest English Bibles. In COVERDALE’S Bible, printed about 1535, for it bears no date, the seventh verse is put in brackets thus:—





And it is the Sprete that beareth wytnes; for the Sprete is the truth. (For there are thre which beare recorde in heaven: the Father, the Woorde, and the Holy Ghost, and these thre are one.) And there are thre which beare record in earth: the Sprete, water, and bloude and these thre are one. If we receyve, etc.





TINDAL was as critical as he was conscientious; and though he admitted the words into the text of the first edition of his New Testament printed in 1526, yet he distinguished them by a different letter, and put them in brackets, as Coverdale has done; and also the words in earth, which stand in 1 John 5:8, without proper authority, and which being excluded make the text the same as in the MSS., etc.





Two editions of this version are now before me; one printed in English and Latin, quarto, with the following title:—





The New Testament, both in Englyshe and Laten, of Master Erasmus translation-and imprinted by William Powell-the yere of out Lorde M.CCCCC.XLVII. And the fyrste yere of the kynges (Edw. VI.) moste gratious reygne.





In this edition the text stands thus:—





And it is the Spirite that beareth wytnes, because the Spirite is truth (for there are thre whiche beare recorde in heaven, the Father, the Worde, and the Holy Ghost, and these thre are one.) For there are thre which beare recorde, (in earth,) the Spirite, water, and blode, and these thre are one. If we receyve, etc.





The other printed in London "by William Tylle, 4to; without the Latin of Erasmus in M.CCCCC.XLIX. the thyrde yere of the reigne of our moost dreade Soverayne Lorde Kynge Edwarde the Syxte," has, with a small variety of spelling, the text in the same order, and the same words included in brackets as above.





The English Bible, with the book of Common Prayer, printed by Richard Cardmarden, at Rouen in Normandy, fol. 1566, exhibits the text faithfully, but in the following singular manner:—





And it is the Spyryte that beareth witnesse, because the Spyryte is truthe. (for there are three which beare recorde in heaven, the Father, the Woorde, and the Holy Ghost; and these Three are One) And three which beare recorde* (in earth) the Spirite, and water, and bloode; and these three are one.





The first English Bible which I have seen, where these distinctions were omitted, is that called The Bishops’ Bible, printed by Jugge, fol. 1568. Since that time, all such distinctions have been generally disregarded. Though a conscientious believer in the doctrine of the ever blessed, holy, and undivided Trinity, and in the proper and essential Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, which doctrines I have defended by many, and even new, arguments in the course of this work, I cannot help doubting the authenticity of the text in question; and, for farther particulars, refer to the observations at the end of this chapter.





Verse 8. The Spirit, and the water, and the bloodÑ This verse is supposed to mean "the Spirit — in the word confirmed by miracles; the water — in baptism, wherein we are dedicated to the Son, (with the Father and the Holy Spirit,) typifying his spotless purity, and the inward purifying of our nature; and the blood — represented in the Lord’s Supper, and applied to the consciences of believers: and all these harmoniously agree in the same testimony, that Jesus Christ is the Divine, the complete, the only Savior of the world." — Mr. Wesley’s notes.





By the written word, which proceeded from the Holy Spirit, that Spirit is continually witnessing upon earth, that God hath given unto us eternal life.





By baptism, which points out our regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost, and which is still maintained as an initiatory rite in the Christian Church, we have another witness on earth of the truth, certainty, importance, and efficacy of the Christian religion. The same may be said of the blood, represented by the holy eucharist, which continues to show forth the death and atoning sacrifice of the Son of God till he comes. See the note on 1 John 5:6."






1 John 5:7-8 New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures

"7 For there are three witness bearers,

8 the spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are in agreement.





THE VULGATE (Latin) - Jerome.


1 John 5:7 quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant 8 Spiritus et aqua et sanguis et tres unum sunt





DARBY TRANSLATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT by John Nelson Darby


7 For they that bear witness are three:


8 the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and the three agree in one.





THE AMERICAN STANDARD NEW TESTAMENT


7 And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.


8 For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one.





WEYMOUTH’S THE NEW TESTAMENT IN MODERN SPEECH translated by Richard Francis Weymouth


7 For there are three that give testimony — the Spirit, the water, and the blood;


8 and there is complete agreement between these three.



BarryRob

[Magdalenbrother]

So much ado about nothing...

Even if the "orthodox" passage were genuine, it doesn't prove that the consubstantial trinity was in the mind of "John". Even Arius would have agreed that there is a Father, a Son and a Holy Spirit and that they are one. But are they consubstantial? That's the crux of the matter and about this "John" has nothing to say...