PDA

View Full Version : Should 1 John 5:7 be in the KJV Bible?



Ron Brown
Jul 26th 2008, 09:30 PM
1 John 5:7- "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.

This verse is not in the early 1-3rd century Greek manuscripts, but it is in the Latin Vulgates of the late 3rd century. This is why only the KJV versions of the Bible include 1 John 5:7. Should the 3rd century Latin Vulgates be considered a valid source of scripture in your opinion? Does 1 John 5:7 belong in every Bible, KJV or otherwise?

timmyb
Jul 26th 2008, 09:36 PM
my NKJV has it...

Ron Brown
Jul 26th 2008, 09:49 PM
my NKJV has it...

That's because it is a KJV Bible. Do you have a NIV Bible? It doesn't.

Bladers
Jul 26th 2008, 10:01 PM
That's because it is a KJV Bible. Do you have a NIV Bible? It doesn't.

1 John 5:7 (New International Version)
7 - For there are three that testify:

Ron Brown
Jul 26th 2008, 10:05 PM
1 John 5:7 (New International Version)
7 - For there are three that testify:

And then it leaves out the rest of the verse, and jumps to verse 8.

Mograce2U
Jul 26th 2008, 11:06 PM
And then it leaves out the rest of the verse, and jumps to verse 8.Here is the CLV rendering:

6 This is He Who is coming through water and blood and spirit--Jesus Christ--not in the water only, but in the water and in the blood. And the spirit it is which is testifying, for the spirit is the truth,

7 seeing that three there are that are testifying,

8 the spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are into for the one thing

It would seem the KJV has taken some liberty in trying to make the Trinity doctrine appear here. But what the Spirit is testifying to is the birth or perhaps baptism of Jesus, His death and resurrection. This is the testimony of God that is greater than any testimony of man. (v9)

I'm inclined to think water means baptism since that was when the voice of God spoke from heaven.

(Mat 3:17 KJV) And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

John the Baptist had received the prophecy that he would know the Lamb of God when the Spirit ascended upon Him as a dove. And he bore this testimony, but God's testimony was greater, since He is the One who raised Jesus from the dead. The sending of the Spirit also provided a greater testimony that Jesus was the Christ than John's.

BroRog
Jul 27th 2008, 12:54 AM
1 John 5:7- "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.

This verse is not in the early 1-3rd century Greek manuscripts, but it is in the Latin Vulgates of the late 3rd century. This is why only the KJV versions of the Bible include 1 John 5:7. Should the 3rd century Latin Vulgates be considered a valid source of scripture in your opinion? Does 1 John 5:7 belong in every Bible, KJV or otherwise?

The subject phrase does not appear in every manuscript. In my view it appears to be a later addition, and if I were doing a translation, I would not put it in the main body but reference it in the margin.

The main reason I believe it doesn't belong has to do with the flow of thought and what John is trying to say. Here is the passage in the NASB.

This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son.
The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son. And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.


Notice the main theme: believing the testimony of men and God, especially God. John's point is to say that we can trust the testimony of men, but we can trust the testimony of God more, and if we believe what God says about Jesus, we will get eternal life. Without the subject verse, John appears to list three sources of testimony: spirit, water and blood. Since we know that substances like water and blood don't literally speak, we are to understand John is being symbolic.


The King James version appears to make a distinction between two different sources of testimony: heaven and earth, giving the formula twice. Notice how the translators prefix the first series of three with "heaven" and prefix the second series of three with "earth".

This is He who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.

In this reading, we have two groups of three: a group in heaven and a group on earth. The group in heave are people: the father, the word, and the Holy Spirit. The group on earth appear to be substances again, though "the Spirit" might be a person. Even in this construction, two of the earthly witnesses are substances, which bring us back to the idea that John must be speaking symbolically of the water and the blood.

In reality, the water and the blood are not symbolic, per se, but occations when God testified from heaven. The first occasion was at Jesus baptism. This is an occasion where God spoke directly from heaven to testify that Jesus is his son.

After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him, and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased."

Ta Da! Jesus came by water and when he did, God spoke verbally and audibly from heaven.

Another occasion came just before the crucifixion of Jesus.

"Now My soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, 'Father, save Me from this hour'? But for this purpose I came to this hour. "Father, glorify Thy name." There came therefore a voice out of heaven: "I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again." The multitude therefore, who stood by and heard it, were saying that it had thundered; others were saying, "An angel has spoken to Him." Jesus answered and said, "This voice has not come for My sake, but for your sakes. "Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world shall be cast out. "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." But He was saying this to indicate the kind of death by which He was to die.

This is where Jesus came "by blood". He went to the cross to save us from our sins and just before he did, God spoke from heaven to testify that Jesus is speaking for God.

Mograce2U
Jul 27th 2008, 01:02 AM
Aah there is one more - on the mount of transfiguration the disciples heard God speak:

(Mark 9:7 KJV) And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him. (Luke 9:35)

Which is a direct confirmation of Deut 18:15 concerning the Prophet who was to come.

That makes 3 witnesses from God Himself!

sasaint
Jul 27th 2008, 01:39 AM
Aah there is one more - on the mount of transfiguration the disciples heard God speak:

(Mark 9:7 KJV) And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him. (Luke 9:35)

Which is a direct confirmation of Deut 18:15 concerning the Prophet who was to come.

That makes 3 witnesses from God Himself!

So, this is the actual occasion of the testimony of the Spirit, just as the other two occasions described by BroRog are the testimony of the water (at Jesus' baptism) and the testimony of the blood (at the cross)! Thus the scripture in 1 John 5:6-8 refers to 3 actual incidents! VERY cool. Thanks Mograce2U and BroRog for illuminating this discussion!

Mograce2U
Jul 27th 2008, 02:38 PM
And John 12:23+ was said after Jesus had raised Lazarus from the dead. If we can't see that Jesus came to bring eternal life in the 1st advent AND accomplished that goal, then we aren't seeing the hope that is in the gospel we preach when we say this is still in the far off future because it is tied to His 2nd coming rather than His first.

mcgyver
Jul 27th 2008, 06:39 PM
1 John 5:7- "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.

This verse is not in the early 1-3rd century Greek manuscripts, but it is in the Latin Vulgates of the late 3rd century. This is why only the KJV versions of the Bible include 1 John 5:7. Should the 3rd century Latin Vulgates be considered a valid source of scripture in your opinion? Does 1 John 5:7 belong in every Bible, KJV or otherwise?

Many years ago, when I was studying (lower) textual criticism I had a question along the same lines. In a series of on-line exchanges with the seminary professor, he gave me one of the fairest evaluations of the Johanine Comma I've seen.

I've posted part of his reply, omitting his name for privacy purposes. The first part of his reply is highly technical...so I've omitted it for clarity's sake :)

So, here then is my question (bolded) and his answer (Italicized):

How is it then, (and I am asking your opinion) that the comma is not more in evidence in those manuscripts that are extant today? It is my understanding (and please correct me if I am wrong in this), that the majority of of MSS that we have today omit the comma (which I personally think is a shame).....Yet the question remains as to why.


Excellent question. There are several theories why, if the comma is, in fact, canonical, how it could have dropped out of virtually all of the manuscripts. We know two things for sure. The first is that old copies of the epistle of 1 John are among the rarest of all NT manuscripts, and, second, there are a few manuscripts which contain the comma. These would be 61 (Montfortianus; 16th century); 629 (14th or 15th century); 918 (16th century); 2318 (18th century). There are others which contain the coma as a variant and would include 88 (12th century); 221 (10th century); 429 (16th century); 636 (15th century).

So, there is so little manuscript evidence one way or the other in manuscripts from the 4th century, let's look at some possible causes of this corruption (if, indeed, it is a corruption).

There are 6 causes recognized by textual critics that can introduce an accidental corruption into the text.

1. Haplography - the accidental omission of a letter.

2. Dittography - the accidental repetition of a letter.

3. Metathesis - the reversal of two letters.

4. Homeoteleuton - the omission of words as a result of the script losing his place in the exemplar.

5. Kakiagraphy - misspelled words.

6. Itacisms - mistakes due to the similarity in sounds of Greek vowels and diphthongs.

If those 6 causes of copyist corruption number 4 seems to be the most likely candidate.

As the scribe copied the Greek text, "oti treiv eisin oi marturountev en tw ouranw o pathr o logov kai to agion pneuma kai outoi oi treiv en eisin kai treiv eisin oi marturountev en th gh to pneuma kai to udwr kai to aima kai oi treiv eiv to en eisin" he would read and write the first phrase "oti treiv eisin oi marturountev" then he would look back to his exemplar for the next phrase, but would look to the second "marturountev" instead of the first one and copy "to pneuma kai to udwr kai to aima kai oi treiv eiv to en eisin" leaving out "en tw ouranw o pathr o logov kai to agion pneuma kai outoi oi treiv en eisin kai treiv eisin oi." Granted this theory also necessitates his leaving out "en th gh" but those variants are found in some Greek manuscripts so the original copyist probably included them and a later copyist, seeing they made no sense, and believing them to be the result of a copyist error, left them out and thus even the minor variant disappeared from the subsequent manuscripts. It must be remembered that among Greek manuscripts which omit the comma, 97% are late manuscripts, dated from the 10th century and later so "it is only contained in late manuscripts" can be countered with "it is only absent from mostly late manuscripts too."

But, if we look at the most ancient translations we see four Old Latin manuscripts which contain the comma, four Syriac editions, as well as Slavic and Armenian manuscripts and at least eight Church Fathers (including Cyprian who died A.D. 258) which cite the comma. Not to mention thousands of Vulgate manuscripts. We must ask ourselves the question, if so many early witnesses attest to the comma, where did those early witnesses get that reading? The early vernaculars were translated from the earliest Greek manuscripts (some saying as early as 150 AD) and it is those early vernaculars which attest to the inclusion of the canon.

The evidence is not conclusive in either case, but there is one other thing to consider, does the inclusion of the comma introduce an error of doctrine into the biblical text? No, for the Triunity of the Godhead is well attested to in many other passages, so, as the evidence is mixed I would include it on the basis of the ancient versional witnesses and because including it does not introduce a doctrinal error but does correct a grammatical error in the text. (Underlined for clarity).

(Although in the original the Greek phrases are in fact in Greek fonts...somehow it got transliterated into English fonts when I copied and pasted from my records.:P)

Hope this helps rather than confuses!!! :lol:

Ron Brown
Jul 27th 2008, 09:57 PM
Many years ago, when I was studying (lower) textual criticism I had a question along the same lines. In a series of on-line exchanges with the seminary professor, he gave me one of the fairest evaluations of the Johanine Comma I've seen.

I've posted part of his reply, omitting his name for privacy purposes. The first part of his reply is highly technical...so I've omitted it for clarity's sake :)

So, here then is my question (bolded) and his answer (Italicized):

How is it then, (and I am asking your opinion) that the comma is not more in evidence in those manuscripts that are extant today? It is my understanding (and please correct me if I am wrong in this), that the majority of of MSS that we have today omit the comma (which I personally think is a shame).....Yet the question remains as to why.


Excellent question. There are several theories why, if the comma is, in fact, canonical, how it could have dropped out of virtually all of the manuscripts. We know two things for sure. The first is that old copies of the epistle of 1 John are among the rarest of all NT manuscripts, and, second, there are a few manuscripts which contain the comma. These would be 61 (Montfortianus; 16th century); 629 (14th or 15th century); 918 (16th century); 2318 (18th century). There are others which contain the coma as a variant and would include 88 (12th century); 221 (10th century); 429 (16th century); 636 (15th century).

So, there is so little manuscript evidence one way or the other in manuscripts from the 4th century, let's look at some possible causes of this corruption (if, indeed, it is a corruption).

There are 6 causes recognized by textual critics that can introduce an accidental corruption into the text.

1. Haplography - the accidental omission of a letter.

2. Dittography - the accidental repetition of a letter.

3. Metathesis - the reversal of two letters.

4. Homeoteleuton - the omission of words as a result of the script losing his place in the exemplar.

5. Kakiagraphy - misspelled words.

6. Itacisms - mistakes due to the similarity in sounds of Greek vowels and diphthongs.

If those 6 causes of copyist corruption number 4 seems to be the most likely candidate.

As the scribe copied the Greek text, "oti treiv eisin oi marturountev en tw ouranw o pathr o logov kai to agion pneuma kai outoi oi treiv en eisin kai treiv eisin oi marturountev en th gh to pneuma kai to udwr kai to aima kai oi treiv eiv to en eisin" he would read and write the first phrase "oti treiv eisin oi marturountev" then he would look back to his exemplar for the next phrase, but would look to the second "marturountev" instead of the first one and copy "to pneuma kai to udwr kai to aima kai oi treiv eiv to en eisin" leaving out "en tw ouranw o pathr o logov kai to agion pneuma kai outoi oi treiv en eisin kai treiv eisin oi." Granted this theory also necessitates his leaving out "en th gh" but those variants are found in some Greek manuscripts so the original copyist probably included them and a later copyist, seeing they made no sense, and believing them to be the result of a copyist error, left them out and thus even the minor variant disappeared from the subsequent manuscripts. It must be remembered that among Greek manuscripts which omit the comma, 97% are late manuscripts, dated from the 10th century and later so "it is only contained in late manuscripts" can be countered with "it is only absent from mostly late manuscripts too."

But, if we look at the most ancient translations we see four Old Latin manuscripts which contain the comma, four Syriac editions, as well as Slavic and Armenian manuscripts and at least eight Church Fathers (including Cyprian who died A.D. 258) which cite the comma. Not to mention thousands of Vulgate manuscripts. We must ask ourselves the question, if so many early witnesses attest to the comma, where did those early witnesses get that reading? The early vernaculars were translated from the earliest Greek manuscripts (some saying as early as 150 AD) and it is those early vernaculars which attest to the inclusion of the canon.

The evidence is not conclusive in either case, but there is one other thing to consider, does the inclusion of the comma introduce an error of doctrine into the biblical text? No, for the Triunity of the Godhead is well attested to in many other passages, so, as the evidence is mixed I would include it on the basis of the ancient versional witnesses and because including it does not introduce a doctrinal error but does correct a grammatical error in the text. (Underlined for clarity).

(Although in the original the Greek phrases are in fact in Greek fonts...somehow it got transliterated into English fonts when I copied and pasted from my records.:P)

Hope this helps rather than confuses!!! :lol:

This just confirms what I already believed. 1 John 5:7 is correct in the KJV bible, and the non-KJV versions of the Bible have it wrong.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 27th 2008, 10:08 PM
This just confirms what I already believed. 1 John 5:7 is correct in the KJV bible, and the non-KJV versions of the Bible have it wrong.

Not necessarily - the exact word for word is different with the KJV possibly adding for clarity's sake. This doesn't make it any more or less infallible or inspired - the addition, whether in the original epistle or later added by a scribe in order to clarify what John was saying has little effect on the truth of the passage.

Personally, I prefer the KJVs interpretation of this passage because of the added clarity, but we can't deny that the earliest manuscripts omit this part. Now, it should be noted that some early church writings from around 200AD reference this writing, meaning some manuscripts did have this portion in there. Secondly, the Waldensian Bible (Latin) goes back further than the Vulgate (earliest used manuscript is from 153AD) and it includes this verse.

It seems that though we no longer have the earliest manuscripts that quote it, it was present in some of them. It makes more grammatical sense to include it than to exclude it because one minor manuscript omits it.

Regardless, the meaning remains the same with or without it.

Ron Brown
Jul 27th 2008, 10:31 PM
Regardless, the meaning remains the same with or without it.

But the Latin Vulgate translation is much more blatant trinitarian in nature, then the Greek one is.

losthorizon
Jul 27th 2008, 10:33 PM
Secondly, the Waldensian Bible (Latin) goes back further than the Vulgate (earliest used manuscript is from 153AD) and it includes this verse.


Actually and historically the Waldensian Bible (Roumant Version) was made from the Vulgate (c. AD 1180) – much later than you suggest.

The Truth About the Waldensian Bible
and the Old Latin Version

By Doug Kutilek


[Reprinted from Baptist Biblical Heritage 2:2, Summer, 1991]

Mr. J. A. Wylie, in his book, History of the Waldenses (1870, 4th ed.), reported, "The 'Lingua Romana,' or Roumant tongue, was the common language of the south of Europe from the eighth to the fourteenth century . . . .Into this tongue--the Roumant--was the first translation of the whole of the New Testament made so early as the twelfth century. This fact Dr. Gilly has been at great pains to prove in his work, The Roumant Version of the Gospel according to John [1848]. The sum of what Dr. Gilly, by a patient investigation into the facts, and a great array of historic documents, maintains, is that all the books of the New Testament were translated from the Latin Vulgate [emphasis added] into the Roumant, that this was the first literal version since the fall of the empire, that it was made in the twelfth century, and was the first translation available for popular use . . . .it was made, as Dr. Gilly, by a chain of proofs, shows, most probably under the superintendence and at the expense of Peter Waldo of Lyons, not later than 1180," (pp. 12, 13).

Here, then, is the conclusion of the acknowledged expert in the field: the Waldensian Bible was made from the Vulgate. An examination of Gilly's work directly provides a little more detail to the picture. Gilly plainly states about the translators of the Roumant version that, "They used the Vulgate of Jerome for their text" (p. xcix), while at the same time he points out that that Vulgate text was of an occasionally mixed character.

losthorizon
Jul 27th 2008, 10:35 PM
But the Latin Vulgate translation is much more blatant trinitarian in nature, then the Greek one is.
What exactly does that mean and what is its relevance?

Ron Brown
Jul 27th 2008, 10:51 PM
What exactly does that mean and what is its relevance?

I know Christian people who despise the KJV Bible because of the Latin Vulgates being used in it. They say that the Catholic Church forced Jerome to add 1 John 5:7 (exactly how it is written in the KJV version) to his 3rd century Latin Bible translation because of the Churches blatant trinitarian theology. Mind you, these are Christian people who don't believe in trinitarian theology, and think the Roman Church fabricated the trinity in the late 3rd century.

losthorizon
Jul 27th 2008, 11:28 PM
I know Christian people who despise the KJV Bible because of the Latin Vulgates being used in it. They say that the Catholic Church forced Jerome to add 1 John 5:7 (exactly how it is written in the KJV version) to his 3rd century Latin Bible translation because of the Churches blatant trinitarian theology. Mind you, these are Christian people who don't believe in trinitarian theology, and think the Roman Church fabricated the trinity in the late 3rd century.
Thanks for the clarification - who are these Christian people who don't believe in Trinitarian theology?

apothanein kerdos
Jul 27th 2008, 11:37 PM
But the Latin Vulgate translation is much more blatant trinitarian in nature, then the Greek one is.

Due to the translation. This, however, doesn't negate a thing I said or pointed out - 1 John 5:7 was quoted by early church writers before the 3rd century.


Losthorizon - aside from the fact that your citation comes from a KJV only website - which automatically casts serious doubt on their level of scholarship - the proof is from the Waldensian Bible itself.

The biggest error the author makes? The Waldensian Bible was written as an alternative to the Latin Vulgate that was viewed as suspect by the Waldensians. Furthermore, the Reformers later translated the Waldensian Bible into Latin (preferring its use over the Latin Vulgate) and compared it with Hebrew and Greek texts (this was the formation of the Olivetan Bible). The fact remains, the Waldensians refused to use the Latin Vulgate and instead used the Old Latin language Romaunt.

The fact remains, there are earlier texts (unbeknownst to us) that use 1 John 5:7 as recorded in the King James - this is evidenced by the Waldensian Bible and early quotes by Church writers.

Ron Brown
Jul 28th 2008, 12:08 AM
Thanks for the clarification - who are these Christian people who don't believe in Trinitarian theology?

People like this guy. Link http://home.inu.net/skeptic/trinity.html

It's a very interesting read.:hmm:

apothanein kerdos
Jul 28th 2008, 12:32 AM
People like this guy. Link http://home.inu.net/skeptic/trinity.html

It's a very interesting read.:hmm:

It's not all that interesting actually. Once you study the history of the Trinity controversy it becomes apparently clear that such a concept was being taught while the Disciples were still around (and, in fact, is found all throughout Scripture, including the Gospels and Pauline epistles).

For instance, we can look to early in the 3rd century and see the Church fighting against Oneness (Sabellianism). This, of course, predates the declaration of 325 by Constantine.

We can even look to Docetism, which is a version of Trinity denial (by stating that Jesus' body was an illusion because God cannot be flesh, thus oneness or at least a proto-oneness belief) being combated in the first and second century. We know that Marcion and Valentinus also taught anti-trinitarian beliefs that were combated by Polycarp (a disciple of John).

Fact being, from the 1st Century the Trinity was believed (even if not called as such) and detractors were viewed as heretics.

Ron Brown
Jul 28th 2008, 12:49 AM
Fact being, from the 1st Century the Trinity was believed (even if not called as such) and detractors were viewed as heretics.

You are correct, but it's still interesting for me to see people try to disprove the trinity in their ignorance of scripture.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 28th 2008, 12:50 AM
You are correct, but it's still interesting for me to see people try to disprove the trinity in their ignorance of scripture.

:lol:

If that's what you find interesting... :)

losthorizon
Jul 28th 2008, 02:47 AM
Losthorizon - aside from the fact that your citation comes from a KJV only website - which automatically casts serious doubt on their level of scholarship

Are you suggesting that Doug Kutilek and the publication, Baptist Biblical Heritage supports the KJV only position? Why is the scholarship in doubt - do you have evidence that it is incorrect? The truth remains the truth – the Waldensian vernacular translation of the Bible is based on the Vulgate. Btw – I didn’t see your citation for this quote from your prior post do you have one or is it "off the cuff"?


apothanein kerdos
Secondly, the Waldensian Bible (Latin) goes back further than the Vulgate (earliest used manuscript is from 153AD) and it includes this verse.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 28th 2008, 02:56 AM
Are you suggesting that Doug Kutilek and the publication, Baptist Biblical Heritage supports the KJV only position? Why is the scholarship in doubt - do you have evidence that it is incorrect? The truth remains the truth – the Waldensian vernacular translation of the Bible is based on the Vulgate. Btw – I didn’t see your citation for this quote from your prior post do you have one or is it "off the cuff"?

I am arguing that the scholarship of saying that the Waldensian is based on the Latin Vulgate when its intention was to be a response to the Latin Vulgate is suspect.

As for citations - I've studied it and seen the differences in person. My bad that I didn't farm Google for websites?

There are some who think the Waldensians based some of their interpretation off the Latin Vulgate, but for the reasons I have presented on this thread, it's just not likely that they quoted it verbatim.

Specifically this:

The biggest error the author makes? The Waldensian Bible was written as an alternative to the Latin Vulgate that was viewed as suspect by the Waldensians. Furthermore, the Reformers later translated the Waldensian Bible into Latin (meant to say French) (preferring its use over the Latin Vulgate) and compared it with Hebrew and Greek texts (this was the formation of the Olivetan Bible). The fact remains, the Waldensians refused to use the Latin Vulgate and instead used the Old Latin language Romaunt.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 28th 2008, 03:44 AM
If you want, Leonard Verduin's book The Reformers and Their Stepchildren might bring up the issue of how the Waldensians were famous for rejecting the Latin Vulgate (I can't remember if he mentions it in his book).

losthorizon
Jul 28th 2008, 03:48 AM
I am arguing that the scholarship of saying that the Waldensian is based on the Latin Vulgate when its intention was to be a response to the Latin Vulgate is suspect.


What makes you think the website is KJV only or is it speaking against the error of KJVonlyism? Again I ask - are you suggesting that Doug Kutilek supports the KJV only position? Is his scholarship flawed?


As for citations - I've studied it and seen the differences in person. My bad that I didn't farm Google for websites?
So your answer is you do not have a citation – that’s what I thought. Thanks.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 28th 2008, 03:51 AM
What makes you think the website is KJV only or is it speaking against the error of KJVonlyism? Again I ask - are you suggesting that Doug Kutilek supports the KJV only position? Is his scholarship flawed?

What I am arguing - can I possibly make this any clearer - the scholarship of saying that the Waldensian is based on the Latin Vulgate when its intention was to be a response to the Latin Vulgate is suspect.

All you can do is go, "Yeah, well, I have a website that says differently." Mazel Tov. I have hours upon hours of study and reading books that contradicts what he says - one of the books I offered up.


So your answer is you do not have a citation – that’s what I thought. Thanks.
:rolleyes:

How many books have you read on this issue or that even mention it? If you want to pat yourself on the back for finding an internet article then feel free to do so. But until you've actually gone and studied the issue, you should realize not much has been accomplished.

I can't believe you're throwing such a fuss over what is essentially a footnote in my post (where I stated, Secondly, the Waldensian Bible (Latin) goes back further than the Vulgate (earliest used manuscript is from 153AD) and it includes this verse.). Why are you trying so hard to be right on something?

My guess is you saw that I mentioned the Waldensian Bible, typed the term into Google, and went to the first or second website that popped up. Again, have you studied this issue?

Getting back to the original point - the Waldensian Bible, which uses texts that pre-date the Latin Vulgate, has 1 John 7 in it, as does the Latin Vulgate. There are too few manuscripts that lack this text to justify changing its translation - but changing the last half of the verse doesn't negate the meaning.

losthorizon
Jul 28th 2008, 04:23 AM
My guess is you saw that I mentioned the Waldensian Bible, typed the term into Google, and went to the first or second website that popped up. Again, have you studied this issue?


Looks like another wrong guess on your part. I was involved in a thread on this board pertaining to “manuscripts” in relation to the KJV only controversy and I posted information on the Waldensian Bible and I thought it was worthwhile to challenge your off-the-cuff remarks as they contradict history. No big deal. ;)

apothanein kerdos
Jul 28th 2008, 04:28 AM
Looks like another wrong guess on your part. I was involved in a thread on this board pertaining to “manuscripts” in relation to the KJV only controversy and I posted information on the Waldensian Bible and I thought it was worthwhile to challenge your off-the-cuff remarks as they contradict history. No big deal. ;)

If you wish to ignore the evidence given (like I made it up?) along with a BOOK citation (which always overrides an internet citation), feel free to do so.

My original points still stand.

losthorizon
Jul 28th 2008, 11:42 AM
My original points still stand.
Stands - on wobbly legs.

.

Firefighter
Jul 28th 2008, 12:42 PM
Absolutely not. While it is true, it cannot be considered as inspired nor orginal.

Now if you really want a good discussion, how about Mark 16:9-20...:o

BadDog
Jul 28th 2008, 01:46 PM
1 John 5:7- "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.

This verse is not in the early 1-3rd century Greek manuscripts, but it is in the Latin Vulgates of the late 3rd century. This is why only the KJV versions of the Bible include 1 John 5:7. Should the 3rd century Latin Vulgates be considered a valid source of scripture in your opinion? Does 1 John 5:7 belong in every Bible, KJV or otherwise?Definitely not.

There are almost no manuscripts before the 16th century which have it. I will not get into a debate on this. Been there-done that. :P But just a few thoughts:

Why does not one older manuscripts (MSS) have the text?
It apparently came from the Old Latin text - and from a margin there
Do we need it?
Why insist on its veracity?


In addition, there are two well-recognized "majority text" Greek NT compilations. (The Textus Receptus is of the majority text family, or as it's often called, the Byzantine family) The first is the Robertson-Pierpont Greek Majority Text, and the 2nd (my personal fav. - I have this one) is the Hodges-Farstadt Greek Majority Text. Neither have this spurious text.

Why insist on its legitimacy? In general ,KJV-only supporters feel that there can be not one error in the English KJV text. Since the English translation in 1611 came from the 2nd revision of the Tyndale work - the TR - if an error is allowed to be there, then suspect comes upon the KJV as well.

If you research this carefully - go to non-KJVonly sites - it should be a no-brainer IMO.

That said let me add that I have a lot of respect for the KJV. I used to use it, and used the NKJV for years also. Tyndale's work was masterful. But as humans, we are frail and prone to errors, even when trying to follow the Spirit's lead.

Take care,

BD

RabbiKnife
Jul 28th 2008, 01:59 PM
The passage should absolutely be in the KJV, because it is in the late texts that the KJV uses as source material.

It should NOT be in translations that use more reliable, older texts.

:D

apothanein kerdos
Jul 28th 2008, 02:16 PM
Definitely not.

There are almost no manuscripts before the 16th century which have it. I will not get into a debate on this. Been there-done that. :P But just a few thoughts:

Why does not one older manuscripts (MSS) have the text?
It apparently came from the Old Latin text - and from a margin there
Do we need it?
Why insist on its veracity?


In addition, there are two well-recognized "majority text" Greek NT compilations. (The Textus Receptus is of the majority text family, or as it's often called, the Byzantine family) The first is the Robertson-Pierpont Greek Majority Text, and the 2nd (my personal fav. - I have this one) is the Hodges-Farstadt Greek Majority Text. Neither have this spurious text.

Why insist on its legitimacy? In general ,KJV-only supporters feel that there can be not one error in the English KJV text. Since the English translation in 1611 came from the 2nd revision of the Tyndale work - the TR - if an error is allowed to be there, then suspect comes upon the KJV as well.

If you research this carefully - go to non-KJVonly sites - it should be a no-brainer IMO.

That said let me add that I have a lot of respect for the KJV. I used to use it, and used the NKJV for years also. Tyndale's work was masterful. But as humans, we are frail and prone to errors, even when trying to follow the Spirit's lead.

Take care,

BD

I'm the furthest thing from a KJV only supporter - in fact, I'm more prone to point out its mistakes. However, on this one issue I think it has gotten it correct. As I pointed out earlier, looking to just manuscript evidence isn't the best way of compiling a Bible. We also have to look at other evidences.

For one, this portion is found in manuscripts from the 3rd century - it's in the Latin Vulgate, which was translated (albeit with errors) from Greek into Latin. Secondly, Church fathers reference this passage in the full context that the KJV has. I can point to Athanasius, Augustine, Tertullian, Council of Carthage, Cyprian of Carthage, and many others to show how this passage was quoted (as the KJV has it) prior to the 5th century (some from the 3rd century).

What this shows is that though we may not have the text on hand, we do have quotes of it from earlier church writings. This seems to indicate that some earlier Greek manuscripts had it while others didn't (it should be of interest to note that most Greek codexes don't even have 1 John, period). Even the Old Latin has it:

Quoniam tres sunt, gui testimonium dant in coelo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra: Spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis: et hi tres unum sun

When translated into modern English, it is very similar to the KJV.

This doesn't mean the KJV is the best version, or that we should bow down and worship it. It simply means that on this passage it is most likely correct because there is a trail of evidence showing this passage has been in 1 John for quite some time.

In our attack on KJV-only beliefs, we shouldn't simply throw out anything that isn't found in earlier manuscripts as a way to show the problem with the KJV. We should be discerning - there are times where the KJV is more accurate than other translations (even the ESV, which I believe to be the most accurate) and there are other times where other translations are more accurate than the KJV.

In this instance, I believe the KJV to be more accurate simply because it matches earlier evidence from church writings.

BroRog
Jul 28th 2008, 02:26 PM
I'm the furthest thing from a KJV only supporter - in fact, I'm more prone to point out its mistakes. However, on this one issue I think it has gotten it correct. As I pointed out earlier, looking to just manuscript evidence isn't the best way of compiling a Bible. We also have to look at other evidences.

For one, this portion is found in manuscripts from the 3rd century - it's in the Latin Vulgate, which was translated (albeit with errors) from Greek into Latin. Secondly, Church fathers reference this passage in the full context that the KJV has. I can point to Athanasius, Augustine, Tertullian, Council of Carthage, Cyprian of Carthage, and many others to show how this passage was quoted (as the KJV has it) prior to the 5th century (some from the 3rd century).

What this shows is that though we may not have the text on hand, we do have quotes of it from earlier church writings. This seems to indicate that some earlier Greek manuscripts had it while others didn't (it should be of interest to note that most Greek codexes don't even have 1 John, period). Even the Old Latin has it:

Quoniam tres sunt, gui testimonium dant in coelo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra: Spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis: et hi tres unum sun

When translated into modern English, it is very similar to the KJV.

This doesn't mean the KJV is the best version, or that we should bow down and worship it. It simply means that on this passage it is most likely correct because there is a trail of evidence showing this passage has been in 1 John for quite some time.

In our attack on KJV-only beliefs, we shouldn't simply throw out anything that isn't found in earlier manuscripts as a way to show the problem with the KJV. We should be discerning - there are times where the KJV is more accurate than other translations (even the ESV, which I believe to be the most accurate) and there are other times where other translations are more accurate than the KJV.

In this instance, I believe the KJV to be more accurate simply because it matches earlier evidence from church writings.

If this is so, why don't any of the so called Early Church Fathers cite the comma in defense of their Trinitarian beliefs? If the comma was in hand and available, don't you think they would have centered their arguments around 1John 5, rather than John 10?

apothanein kerdos
Jul 28th 2008, 02:31 PM
If this is so, why don't any of the so called Early Church Fathers cite the comma in defense of their Trinitarian beliefs? If the comma was in hand and available, don't you think they would have centered their arguments around 1John 5, rather than John 10?

:B

I just cited evidence that they DID use it as a defense and even showed in the Old Latin - which is from the 5th Century - the comma is in there.

BroRog
Jul 28th 2008, 02:35 PM
:B

I just cited evidence that they DID use it as a defense and even showed in the Old Latin - which is from the 5th Century - the comma is in there.

You asserted evidence. That isn't the same thing as citing evidence.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 28th 2008, 02:52 PM
You asserted evidence. That isn't the same thing as citing evidence.

Tertullian in Adversus Praxean states in Chapter 25, "Qui tres unum sun," which is a direct quote from 1 John (considering they didn't quote like we do today, whenever it is a word for word quote we must take it as a quote from Scripture).

Cyprian of Carthage writes the following (appealing to both John 10 and 1 John 5:7):

The Lord says, I and the Father are one; (John 10:30) and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, And these three are one.(1 John 5:7)

Now, there are other texts that seemingly ignore 1 John 5:7. This either means that at a very early stage the text was added in or removed. Or, it could very well mean that where it's not quoted in defense of the Trinity is strategic considering most Gnostic sects denies that the epistles of John were inspired whereas John 10 was inspired. Thus, it would make more sense to quote from the passages they used than to quote from a book they didn't believe was inspired.

mcgyver
Jul 28th 2008, 03:07 PM
One thing that I'd like to throw in here for consideration :)

Way back in post #11 I gave a piece of correspondence between myself and a certain seminary Prof. who really seemed to have a balanced view of the Comma, and I'd like to re-post his final comments for a moment's review:

The evidence is not conclusive in either case, but there is one other thing to consider, does the inclusion of the comma introduce an error of doctrine into the biblical text? No, for the Triunity of the Godhead is well attested to in many other passages, so, as the evidence is mixed I would include it on the basis of the ancient versional witnesses and because including it does not introduce a doctrinal error but does correct a grammatical error in the text.

He really hits the nail on the head IMO. For every argument for the Johanine Comma's omission there is an equally valid argument for it's inclusion.

Now this correspondence was several years ago, and perhaps in the interim there have been more early versions of 1 John discovered...perhaps not...in any event I think that we need to be careful of "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" in our fervor to find the "most accurate" text.

God in His providence allowed the Comma to remain for many years in the majority of our English translations, and as has been pointed several times there is simply not enough definitive evidence extant to say one way or the other...Unless things have changed EARLY (Got to emphasize that word :P) Greek manuscripts of 1 John are among the rarest of all.

The inclusion or omission of the Johanine Comma in no way affects the doctrine of the Trinity...and based on age/acceptance/versional witnesses perhaps we should not so quickly discount it simply because it is missing from the early manuscripts that we have...when in fact tomorrow we might find the Autograph and find it there ;)

Just something to think about :hmm:

BadDog
Jul 28th 2008, 05:43 PM
I'm the furthest thing from a KJV only supporter - in fact, I'm more prone to point out its mistakes. However, on this one issue I think it has gotten it correct. As I pointed out earlier, looking to just manuscript evidence isn't the best way of compiling a Bible. We also have to look at other evidences.

For one, this portion is found in manuscripts from the 3rd century - it's in the Latin Vulgate, which was translated (albeit with errors) from Greek into Latin. Secondly, Church fathers reference this passage in the full context that the KJV has. I can point to Athanasius, Augustine, Tertullian, Council of Carthage, Cyprian of Carthage, and many others to show how this passage was quoted (as the KJV has it) prior to the 5th century (some from the 3rd century).

What this shows is that though we may not have the text on hand, we do have quotes of it from earlier church writings. This seems to indicate that some earlier Greek manuscripts had it while others didn't (it should be of interest to note that most Greek codexes don't even have 1 John, period). Even the Old Latin has it:

Quoniam tres sunt, gui testimonium dant in coelo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra: Spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis: et hi tres unum sun

When translated into modern English, it is very similar to the KJV.

This doesn't mean the KJV is the best version, or that we should bow down and worship it. It simply means that on this passage it is most likely correct because there is a trail of evidence showing this passage has been in 1 John for quite some time.

In our attack on KJV-only beliefs, we shouldn't simply throw out anything that isn't found in earlier manuscripts as a way to show the problem with the KJV. We should be discerning - there are times where the KJV is more accurate than other translations (even the ESV, which I believe to be the most accurate) and there are other times where other translations are more accurate than the KJV.

In this instance, I believe the KJV to be more accurate simply because it matches earlier evidence from church writings.AK,

Can you be more specific re. those quotes, because what I've read doesn't agree. Now the Latin Vulgate came out about 405 AD. It 1st appeared in the older Old Latin, which we know got much distorted over time. (Hence the need for the LV.)

But what Greek MSS have it? It appears to have been written as a commentary in the margin of a MSS and later ended up in the actual text, but not until the 9th century! Even some very strong Majority Text adherents do not accept it. Also, around 200 - 210 AD Tertullian wrote an Apology in support of the trinity. He did not quote this text, which he certainly would have if it was in his Greek MSS at the time.

I too respect the KJV, but this text has so little support.

There are only 8 manuscripts that contain this text: codex 88 (12th century), codex 429 (14th century), codex 629 (14th century), codex 636 (15th century), codex 61 (16th century), codex 918 (15th century), codex 2473 (17th century), and codex 2318 (18th century) and other minor variant readings. The earliest of these manuscripts is codex 88 dated in the 12th century. There are no early manuscripts of what is referred to as the Johannine Comma in existence at this time.

Notice that none of these are very old manuscripts.

We know that it was a note in the margin of Greek manuscript 88 - like a commentary on the verse. We do not have a single old manuscript with that as part of the text - not one. It is believed that when Jerome translated his Latin Vulgate that he included that note in the margin as part of his Latin text. It apparently began to be used in worship and a copyist apparently included the marginal note in the text.

A manuscript, Greg. 61, was found (or more likely manufactured). This manuscript exists today at Trinity College in Dublin, and is dated to about 1520, written in Oxford by a Franciscan named Froy or Roy. This manuscript was apparently based on the Latin Vulgate.

Dr. Daniel Wallace is one of the foremost Greek textual critics. He wrote an article on this here:
http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/1john5-7.htm

Here's a portion of that article:

The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared (1516), 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 manuscripts that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written by one Roy or Froy at Oxford in c. 1520),3 Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this manuscript 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,4 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 manuscripts he could for the production of his Greek New Testament. 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.
Now notice the date of codex 61 - 1520... Erasmus' 1st version of his "textus receptus" was in 1516. He did not include this text until his 3rd edition in 1520... Many believe that he was given a manufactured manuscript.

Of course, we cannot prove that this text was manufactured; that is only conjecture. But we do know that Erasmus (the compiler of the Greek text from which the KJV was translated) put in his notes that this portion was almost certainly spurious.

BD

BadDog
Jul 28th 2008, 06:10 PM
Tertullian in Adversus Praxean states in Chapter 25, "Qui tres unum sun," which is a direct quote from 1 John (considering they didn't quote like we do today, whenever it is a word for word quote we must take it as a quote from Scripture).

BD: This is nowhere near the Comma. No authorities claim that Tertullian quoted it! Do you know of any?

Cyprian of Carthage writes the following (appealing to both John 10 and 1 John 5:7):

The Lord says, I and the Father are one; (John 10:30) and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, And these three are one.(1 John 5:7)

BD: This is not a quote, but merely an assertion of trinitarian doctrine. 1 John 5:7 states that there are 3 witnesses... I do not see that here. This seems to be merely commentary regarding John 10:30. The chapter divisions did not come about until the 9th century, so what is in parentheses was not there, of course.

Now, there are other texts that seemingly ignore 1 John 5:7. This either means that at a very early stage the text was added in or removed. Or, it could very well mean that where it's not quoted in defense of the Trinity is strategic considering most Gnostic sects denies that the epistles of John were inspired whereas John 10 was inspired. Thus, it would make more sense to quote from the passages they used than to quote from a book they didn't believe was inspired.
There has been strong support for the canonicity of 1 John from very early. Both John's gospel and his 1st letter were written to deal with such gnostic heresies, so if one was not considered to be inspired, then why would the other?

Thx,

BD

BadDog
Jul 28th 2008, 06:37 PM
Here's a good link regarding the history behind the Comma:
http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity/verses/CommaJohanneum.html



ca. 200 A.D. | Alexandria, Egypt

Clement of Alexandrian quotes from 1 John 5:5-8 and does not quote the Comma as part of his quotation. If he knew of the Comma this is very unusual in light of his normally strong theological emphasis on the relationship between the Father, the Word and the Spirit. He is unaware of the Comma.

"He says, "This is He who came by water and blood," and again, "For there are three that bear witness, the spirit," which is life, "and the water," which is regeneration and faith, "and the blood," which is knowledge; "and these three are one." (Cassiodorus)

ca. 210 A.D. | Africa

Tertullian makes a statement that he supports by quoting John 10:30, yet he does not quote the Comma which would have been the same argument but stronger. He is unaware of the Comma.

"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent persons, who are yet distinct one from another. These Three are, one essence, not one person, as it is said, "I and my Father are One," in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number" (Against Praxeas, 25).

ca. 250 A.D. | Carthage, Africa

Cyprian of Carthage quotes John as saying "these three are one" in reference to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (not Father, Word and Spirit). Since he has a habit of quoting Scripture and does not quote the Comma here, but must appeal to John 10:30 to make his argument for the oneness of the Father and Son, he is likely quoting a truncated portion of 1 John 5:8, along with an interpretative spin, in an attempt to include the Holy Spirit along with the Father and Son. There would be no need to do this if he had known of the Comma. He is unaware of the Comma.

"The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one,' and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'and these three are one.' (On the Unity of the Church).

ca. 255 A.D. | Rome, Italy

Novatian writes a treatise on the Trinity. He does not mention the Comma.

ca. 360 AD | Asia Minor or Gaul

Hilary of Poitiers writes a substantial work called On the Trinity but does not mention the Comma. Hilary was from southern Gaul and may have written this work when he was in exile in Phrygia in Asia Minor.

363 AD | Rome: Damasus becomes bishop of Rome.

ca. 363 A.D. | Asia, Minor

Council of Laodicea lists the Old Testament books. The three letters of John are included.

367 AD | Rome: Athanasius first lists the 27 books of the later accepted New Testament canon in his Festal Letter.

ca. 370 AD | Germania: The invading Huns begin to displace the Visigoths in the Baltic region. The Visigoths are Arians.

ca. 373 AD | Africa: Augustine embraces Manicheanism while studying in Carthage. Manicheanism taught a distinct dualism between good and evil, light and darkness. The founder, Mani, held that there were thus two Gods. One god created good, the other created evil and therefore no one could be held accountable for his/her sins. See Augustine on Original Sin and Predestination.

ca. 379 AD | Spain: The Priscillian problem is reported to the Bishop of Rome. They are advised to deal with the matter locally.

380 AD | Roman Empire: In February, Emperor Theodosius decrees that Christianity is the state religion of the Roman Empire and the church must adhere to Nicean-Athanasian Trinitarianism, as defined by the bishops of Rome and Alexandria, against Arianism which he outlaws. Theodosius banishes the Arian bishop of Constantinople and replaces him with Gregory Nazianzen, an Athanasian Trinitarian.

380 AD | Greece: Jerome goes to Constantinople and studies under Gregory Nazianzen, the new Bishop of Constantinople.

380 AD | Spain: A council gathers at Saragossa, Spain, to address the Priscillian situation. It is attended by ten Spanish bishops and two Gallic bishops from Aquitaine. Priscillian was excommunicated along with the other leaders of the sect, Instantius, Salvianus, and Helpidius. Instantius defiantly ordains Priscillian Bishop of Avila, Spain.

ca. 380 AD | Spain: A reference to a variant form of the Comma in Liber Apologeticus, a work attributed to either Priscillian or Bishop Instantius who were both later charged with Manicheanism. This is the first known occurrence of a passage that resembles 1 John 5:7.

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).

381 AD | Greece: Council of Constantinople under Gregory Nazianzen "confirms" Nicene Creed. Since Arianism is illegal in the empire, they have no voice at the council.

382 AD | Rome: First council to adopt a Scripture canon. Damasus, bishop of Rome, approves the Athanasian list.

382 AD | Rome: Jerome becomes secretary of Damasus, Bishop of Rome. Damasus commissions Jerome to translate the Scriptures into Latin - the Vulgate. He will produce three slightly different versions. The Romana Vulgate is the first.

ca. 383 AD | Africa: One of the great leaders of the Manicheans, Faustus of Mileve, had come to Carthage in 382, and Augustine was hoping that this Faustus, who was known for being a persuasive speaker, could address some of his concerns about the religion. Augustine is disappointed with him as nothing more than a rhetoritician.

383 AD | Italy: Augustine abandons Manicheanism and leaves for Rome.

384 AD | Gaul: Bishop Instantius, friend of Priscillian, is tried at a Synod in Bordeaux in southwestern Gaul and deposed of his office.

384 AD | Rome: Damasus, Bishop of Rome, dies and Jerome is expected to replace him but a rival Siricius is elected instead. Jerome leaves Rome and goes to Antioch in Palestine, then Alexandria, then settles in Bethlehem in 386 AD.

384 AD | Italy: Augustine becomes a catechumen of Ambrose, Bishop of Milan.

385 AD | Gaul: Priscillian is tried at Treves (Trier) in southeastern Gaul and executed for sorcery. He is also accused of being a Manichean. It appears his charge of sorcery was based on mystic Zodiacal concepts.

385 AD | Palestine: Jerome first uses the Greek Septuagint and Origen's Hexapla to translate the Old Testament. Having spent several years in Palestine, Jerome noted the Jews did not count Deutero-canonical books inspired and did not wish to include them. Augustine's opinion prevails and he is forced to include them.

387 AD | Palestine: Chrysostom in his Homilies against the Jews writes, "So there were three witnesses on earth and three in Heaven who made it clear that God's glory cannot be approached." However, it is plainly clear the three witnesses he has in mind for both heaven and earth are not the two sets of three mentioned in John's letter. However, one does wonder why he uses this type of terminology.

390 AD | Palestine:Jerome now uses the Hebrew Masoretic text, with the aid of several rabbis, for the basis of his translation.

391 AD | Africa: While visiting Hippo for personal reasons, Bishop Valerius ordains Augustine unexpectedly.

393 AD | Africa: Council of Hippo (near Carthage) also approves the Athanasian list (December).

395 AD | Rome: Honorius becomes Emperor of the West.

396 AD | Africa: Bishop Valerius dies and Augustine becomes bishop.

397 AD | Africa: Council of Carthage also approves the Athanasian list.

401 AD | Africa: The Arian Visigoths begin to enter the Roman Empire due to pressure from invading Huns.

405 AD | Palestine: Jerome completes the Vulgate.

406 AD | Africa: Under King Gunneric, the Arian Vandals settle in Aquitainia, north of the Pyrenees, after marauding through Gaul from Germania.

ca. 407 AD | Africa Augustine of Hippo writes a commentary on the first letter of John. The copies we now have end at 1 John 5:3.

408 AD | Rome: The Visigoth King Alaric beseiges Rome. Alaric is an Arian.

409 AD | Africa: The Vandals cross the Pyrenees into Spain.

ca. 409-413 AD| Africa: Orosius, a native of Tarragon Spain (Or Braga, Portugal), escapes the Vandal invasion and leaves for Africa. He was a Christian priest in Spain and consulted Augustine on the Priscillian matter who sends him to Jerome in Palestine. He returned to Africa in 416 with the newly discovered relics of Stephen which were take to Braga, Portugal by the recommendation of Avitus.

Here we see an intimate connection from a key figure from Spain in the region of Priscillian's activity, who is also connected to Jerome and to Augustine. It is perhaps this man who brings the Comma to North Africa. He was involved with the Priscillian affair and would also likely have brought Spanish manuscripts to Africa when he fled from the Vandals invading Spain.

412 AD | Africa: Donatism is banned by Imperial decree.

415 AD | Palestine: Synod at Diospolis pronounced the writings of Pelagius to be orthodox.

415 AD | Africa: Augustine writes to Orosius against the Priscillianists and Origenists - Ad Orosium contra Priscillianistas et Origenistas.

418 AD | Africa: Council of Carthage, with 200 bishops present, condemns Pelgianism.

419 AD | Spain: Visigoths invade Spain and overtake the Vandals.

419 AD | Africa: Council of Carthage also confirms the Athanasian list.

ca. 425 AD | Africa: Augustine completes On the Trinity. He does not mention the Comma.

ca. 427 AD | Africa: Augustine of Hippo writes a treatise against Arianism. He does not know of the Comma but interprets 1 John 5:8 to refer to the Trinity.

I would not have you mistake that place in the epistle of John the apostle where he says, 'There are three witnesses: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three are one.'.... if we will inquire into the things signified I by these, there not unreasonably comes into our thoughts the Trinity itself, which is the one, only, true, supreme God, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, of whom it could most truly be said, "There are three witnesses, and the three are one:" so that by the term 'Spirit' we should understand God the Father to be signified; as indeed it was concerning the worshipping of Him that the Lord was speaking, when He said, "God is a Spirit:" by the term, 'blood,' the Son; because "the Word was made flesh:" and by the term 'water,' the Holy Spirit; as, when Jesus spoke of the water which He would give to them that thirst, the evangelist saith, "But this said He of the Spirit which they that believed on Him were to receive....And if in any other way this depth of mystery which we read in John's epistle can be expounded and understood agreeably with the Catholic faith, which neither confounds nor divides the Trinity, neither believes the substances diverse nor denies that the persons are three, it is on no account to be rejected" (Contra Maximinum Ariannum)

429 AD | Africa: North Africa is invaded by 80,000 Vandals under their king, Gaiseric (or Genseric), who leads his forces from the Iberian Peninsula across the narrow Straits of Gibraltar. Bishops flee to fortified Hippo.

430 AD | Africa: The Vandals advance on Hippo. Augustine dies on August 28 during the seige.

430 AD | Africa: Carthage falls to the Vandals. Gaiseric makes Carthage his capital.

450 AD | Africa: "And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, The Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one." (Contra Varimadum).

451 AD | Gaul: Attila raids Gaul.

455 AD | Rome: The Vandals sack Rome for two weeks and then leave.

480 AD | Western Europe: The Visigoths extend their domain from the Loire to Gibraltar and from the Bay of Biscay to the Rhine. Their seat of empire is Toulouse.

533 AD | Africa: Belisarius invades North Africa with a relatively small force. He defeats the Vandals and regains the region as a Byzantine province for Justinian.

541 AD | : Vulgate Codex Amiantinus, considered one of the best manuscripts, does not have the Comma.

546 AD | : Vulgate Codex Fuldensis. Does not contain the Comma but it does contain the Comma phrase "in earth" for 1 John 5:8. It also contains a reference to the Comma in the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles allegedly written by Jerome. However, tnis is considered spurious by many because the Comma is absent from John's first letter.

"according to the rule of truth, so these Epistles I have restored to their proper order; which, if arranged agreeably to the original text, and faithfully interpreted in Latin diction, would neither cause perplexity to the readers, nor would the various readings contradict themselves, especially in that place where we read the unity of the Trinity laid down in the Epistle of John. In this I found translators (or copyists) widely deviating from the truth; who set down in their own edition the names only of the three witnesses, that is, the Water, Blood, and Spirit; but omit the testimony of the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; by which, above all places, the Divinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is proved to be one.

ca. 650 AD | : Codex Pal Legionensis (l). Has the Comma but with the words "in Christ Jesus" similar to the Priscillian quotation.

1514 AD | : Cardinal Ximenes' Complutensian Polyglott Greek edition contained the verse
Now the first person to write defending the trinity (everyone knows) was Tertullian. It is strange than in such a treatise (Apology) that he never quoted the Comma. That is very significant. But IMO the Greek MSS evidence is the bottom-line...

Here's a table of manuscript history:


Manuscript Evidence

Greek Manuscripts
Date Manuscript Name Location Comments
14th-15th century 629 Codex Ottobonianus Vatican Original.

Latin next to a Greek text revised to conform to the Latin. Comma copied back into the Greek from the Latin (Scrivener).
ca. 1520 61 Codex Montfortianus Dublin Original.

Reads "Holy Spirit" instead of simply "Spirit". Articles missing before the three witnesses (Spirit, water, blood).
16th century 918 Spain Original
18th century 2318 Bucharist Original. Thought to be influenced by the Clementine Vulgate.
16th century 110 (w) Codex Ravianus (also called Berolinensis) Naples Original
10th century 221 Oxford Marginal gloss: 15th or 16th century
11th century 88 Codex Regis Naples Marginal gloss: 16th century
14th century 429 Codex Wolfenbuttel Marginal gloss: 16th century
16th century 636 Naples Marginal gloss: 16h century
11th century 635 Naples Marginal gloss: 17th century.

Latin Manuscripts
Date Manuscript Name Location Remarks
7th century Palimpset Leon Cathedral Spanish
7th century Fragment of Freisling Spanish
9th century Codex Cavensis Spanish
10th century Codex Complutensis Spanish
10th century Codex Toletanus Spanish
8th-9th century Codes Theodulphianus Franco-Spanish
8th-9th century Some Sangallense manuscripts Franco-Spanish

As you can see, no old Greek or Latin MSS.

Just FYI. I don't know why this has become such a large issue. As was pointed out, we have much Bible evidence of the trinity. We don't need to use very questionable passages - that impinges upon our trustworthiness to those with whom we're discussing such things.

BD

apothanein kerdos
Jul 28th 2008, 08:42 PM
I'll respond to this one question, but after that I will graciously bow out. There is simply too much evidence presented for me to make an adequate argument against, nor to I even desire to. As I originally stated (and then became stupidly dogmatic about a position I knew didn't matter), though I believe the passage was in the originals, it wouldn't matter if it was or not because it doesn't change the meaning of the passage.


There has been strong support for the canonicity of 1 John from very early. Both John's gospel and his 1st letter were written to deal with such gnostic heresies, so if one was not considered to be inspired, then why would the other?

Many Gnostics viewed the author of the Gospel of John as different from the epistles of John. In other words, they believed two different people wrote the epistles and the Gospel and the author of the Epistles changed parts of the Gospel of John.

Not claiming it's the most intelligent belief ever (because it's not), but this is why they rejected one and not the other.


As for the overall topic, my apologies for becoming dogmatic on a topic I knew I had no need to be dogmatic on.

BadDog
Jul 28th 2008, 10:02 PM
I'll respond to this one question, but after that I will graciously bow out. There is simply too much evidence presented for me to make an adequate argument against, nor to I even desire to. As I originally stated (and then became stupidly dogmatic about a position I knew didn't matter), though I believe the passage was in the originals, it wouldn't matter if it was or not because it doesn't change the meaning of the passage.

Many Gnostics viewed the author of the Gospel of John as different from the epistles of John. In other words, they believed two different people wrote the epistles and the Gospel and the author of the Epistles changed parts of the Gospel of John.

Not claiming it's the most intelligent belief ever (because it's not), but this is why they rejected one and not the other.


As for the overall topic, my apologies for becoming dogmatic on a topic I knew I had no need to be dogmatic on.No apologies needed, AK. And I'm sorry - didn't intend to come on strong myself either.

That the message in 1 John 5:7, 8 in the KJV or NKJV is truth cannot be doubted.

Thx for the info. on John's writings. When I read them, it is so clear that 1 John and his gospel are written by the same author. Both have fairly straightforward Greek, and both start with "in the beginning" and deal with docetism (or gnosticism - some will say) in the 1st portion.

Are you sure about the question of authorship? I understand that John's other letters were questioned, but I think that his 1st letter was accepted from the get-go as from him.

I don't make a big deal about most of the differences between the KJV and most modern translations... but this one I do, because I think it was manipulated. Regardless, I want the truth to come out, and we do not need this text to defend the trinity anyway.

But hang in there. Sorry about the data dump earlier. I don't expect you, or anyone else for that matter, to address all that stuff. Just wanted to give people something to think about - to research.


Anyway, here's the portions of John's gospel and his 1st letter which IMO were aimed at docetism (a forerunner of gnosticism):

John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 All things were created through Him, and apart from Him not one thing was created that has been created. 4 In Him was life, and that life was the light of men.

5-14 That light shines in the darkness, yet the darkness did not overcome it. 6 There was a man named John who was sent from God. 7 He came as a witness to testify about the light, so that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but he came to testify about the light. 9 The true light, who gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was created through Him, yet the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own people did not receive Him. 12 But to all who did receive Him, He gave them the right to be children of God, to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood, or of the will of the flesh, or of the will of man, but of God. 14 The Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We observed His glory, the glory as the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

15-18 (John testified concerning Him and exclaimed, "This was the One of whom I said, 'The One coming after me has surpassed me, because He existed before me.' ") 16 For we have all received grace after grace from His fullness. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God. The only Son-- the One who is at the Father's side-- He has revealed Him.

1 John 1:1-4 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have observed, and have handled with our hands, concerning the Word of life-- 2 that life was revealed, and we have seen it and we testify and declare to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us-- 3 what we have seen and heard we also declare to you, so that you may have fellowship along with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. 4 We are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.

5 Now this is the message we have heard from Him and declare to you: God is light, and there is absolutely no darkness in Him.

Compare the opening texts in both above. The red text is so similar, and the underlined portions address docetism (and gnoticism).
Take care,

BD

apothanein kerdos
Jul 28th 2008, 10:37 PM
No apologies needed, AK. And I'm sorry - didn't intend to come on strong myself either.

That the message in 1 John 5:7, 8 in the KJV or NKJV is truth cannot be doubted.

Thx for the info. on John's writings. When I read them, it is so clear that 1 John and his gospel are written by the same author. Both have fairly straightforward Greek, and both start with "in the beginning" and deal with docetism (or gnosticism - some will say) in the 1st portion.

Are you sure about the question of authorship? I understand that John's other letters were questioned, but I think that his 1st letter was accepted from the get-go as from him.

I don't make a big deal about most of the differences between the KJV and most modern translations... but this one I do, because I think it was manipulated. Regardless, I want the truth to come out, and we do not need this text to defend the trinity anyway.

But hang in there. Sorry about the data dump earlier. I don't expect you, or anyone else for that matter, to address all that stuff. Just wanted to give people something to think about - to research.


Anyway, here's the portions of John's gospel and his 1st letter which IMO were aimed at docetism (a forerunner of gnosticism):

John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 All things were created through Him, and apart from Him not one thing was created that has been created. 4 In Him was life, and that life was the light of men.

5-14 That light shines in the darkness, yet the darkness did not overcome it. 6 There was a man named John who was sent from God. 7 He came as a witness to testify about the light, so that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but he came to testify about the light. 9 The true light, who gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was created through Him, yet the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own people did not receive Him. 12 But to all who did receive Him, He gave them the right to be children of God, to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood, or of the will of the flesh, or of the will of man, but of God. 14 The Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We observed His glory, the glory as the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

15-18 (John testified concerning Him and exclaimed, "This was the One of whom I said, 'The One coming after me has surpassed me, because He existed before me.' ") 16 For we have all received grace after grace from His fullness. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God. The only Son-- the One who is at the Father's side-- He has revealed Him.

1 John 1:1-4 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have observed, and have handled with our hands, concerning the Word of life-- 2 that life was revealed, and we have seen it and we testify and declare to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us-- 3 what we have seen and heard we also declare to you, so that you may have fellowship along with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. 4 We are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.

5 Now this is the message we have heard from Him and declare to you: God is light, and there is absolutely no darkness in Him.

Compare the opening texts in both above. The red text is so similar, and the underlined portions address docetism (and gnoticism).
Take care,

BD

You certainly won't get any disagreement out of me.

The problem the Gnostics had is that they would claim certain traditions but ignore others, claim certain Scriptures but discard others (Marcion, for example, cut out much of the Gospel of John).

I know they did question the authorship of 1 John. The problem is, I think, is you're looking at it logically and from the proper perspective. In order to understand what they were doing, one must think like a heretic. :)

Of course John was writing in response to Gnosticism, but this doesn't change the fact that the Gnostics - being manipulative - discredited him as the author of some of his epistles and chopped up his Gospel.

It may very well be too that they accepted 1 John as his, but denied him as the author of the Gospel. Different sects did different things. Arianism is just as Gnostic as Docetism, but both hold different views of Christ. Likewise, it may be that the Gnostics I have read (and read about) denied 1 John belonged to John while others believed it did.

Quite the fickle group (and having a modern day resurgence).

BadDog
Jul 29th 2008, 06:59 PM
apothanein kerdos (to put gain to death),

Thx. Appreciate your comments. Nice posting.

BD

Steven Avery
Oct 26th 2008, 01:07 PM
Hi Folks,


As you can see, no old Greek or Latin MSS. The list that was given showed Latin MSS beginning in the 7th century, which is likely the first one with the Comma (although the list may be a smidgen incomplete in the following centuries). And it looks like you may have mistakenly thought that the short list given was all the Latin MSS with the Johannine Comma.

In addition to MSS starting in the 7th century we have the Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles, Likely written by Jerome although an attempt has been made to call it a later forgery, an attempt that arose specifically because of the Johannine Comma reference. This Prologue specifically mentions the Johannine Comma being dropped by unfaithful translators and is extant from the 6th Century. (Ironically, that Codex, Fuldensis, does not have the verse in its own text !)

Now I hope you realize that there are few Latin MS before the 7th Century that have 1st John, and that any Latin MS up to the 10th century, the list given, would definitely be consider 'old'. We only have a small number of such MSS. If you extend up to the age of printing you will get a huge number of Latin MSS added, likely hundreds, maybe thousands, to the list. Approximately 90% of the Latin MSS. The question of the number of Latin MSS is discussed more in the Michael Maynard book about the Johannine Comma.

Thus the comment "no old Greek or Latin MSS" is incorrect.
"no (extant) old Greek" is fine, however.

Shalom,
Steven Avery