PDA

View Full Version : Discussion just what is the Johannine Comma



neverleaveunorfors
Oct 6th 2008, 11:52 AM
related to an addition to 1 Jhn 5:7 and why would any one add to Gods word and what did he warn the one that adds to or takes away from his word?

mcgyver
Oct 6th 2008, 12:12 PM
related to an addition to 1 Jhn 5:7 and why would any one add to Gods word and what did he warn the one that adds to or takes away from his word?

Good morning! :)

Before I get started, I should state that the inclusion or omission of the Johannine Comma does not affect the doctrine of the trinity in any way, shape or form...which is a good thing!

The earliest manuscripts of 1 John that we have (and I've got to stress...WE HAVE) don't contain the comma...but that really doesn't mean a whole lot; as early copies of 1 John are the rarest of all extant manuscripts...there are simply not enough to be certain one way or the other.

Now I'm not looking at my notes, so forgive me if my dates are off...:)
But the earliest manuscript that contains the comma is from the 14th century...and the comma is in a corrector's hand.

I personally think that the comma should be included, as it corrects an error in Greek grammar...but (as I alluded to earlier) there is simply not enough evidence one way or the other to state that it should or shouldn't be there.

As far as adding or subtracting from God's word, I believe that this is in reference to those who would change the bible to fit a particular theology (like the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation, for example).

In this case, it is a matter of God-fearing people trying to "get it right" as it were.

I hope that this answered your question! :)

Rufus_1611
Oct 6th 2008, 12:17 PM
related to an addition to 1 Jhn 5:7 and why would any one add to Gods word and what did he warn the one that adds to or takes away from his word?

1 John 5:7 is part of the incorrupted word of God. It is not the books that contain this verse that are guilty of adding to the word of God but rather the books that have taken away these words that are guilty of taking away from the word of God.

----------

Wycliff - 1395
"For thre ben, that yyuen witnessing in heuene, the Fadir, the Sone, and the Hooli Goost; and these thre ben oon."

Tyndale - 1525
"(For ther are thre which beare recorde in heuen the father the worde and the wholy goost. And these thre are one)"

Miles Coverdale - 1535
"(For there are thre which beare recorde in heauen: the father, the worde, and the holy goost, & these thre are one.)"

Bishop's - 1568
"For there are three which beare recorde in heauen, the father, the worde, and the holy ghost, and these three are one."

Geneva - 1587
"For there are three, which beare recorde in heauen, the Father, the Worde, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one."

Authorized Version - 1611
"For there are three that beare record in heauen, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one."

-----------

American Standard Version - 1901
"And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth."

New American Standard Version - 1960
"For there are three that testify:"

New World Translation - 1961
"For there are three witness bearers"

Revised Standard Version - 1971
"And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth."

New International Version -1978
"For there are three that testify:"

English Standard Version - 2001
"For there are three that testify:"

----------


"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein." - Jeremiah 6:16

David Taylor
Oct 6th 2008, 12:18 PM
The Johannine Comma is the second phrase of I John 5:7.

It appears in the Byzantine family of Manuscripts; and was also referenced by some of the pre-nicene early church fathers.

It does not appear in the Southern Alexandrian familly of Manuscripts; it like the beginning of John 8, the longer ending of Mark 16, and other specific passages are debated by textual criticism scholars.

The great thing is however, no biblical doctrine is ever uniquely contained within any of disputed passages; most are re-quotes of similar concepts from other passages found in both manuscript families; and neither omission or inclusion cause harm to the truths given and handed down to us of God's Word.

The fact that the Johannine Comma gives us a clear picture of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost representing the Godhead trinity; is one of dozens of places throughout the scriptures that pronounce the deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.....Hallelujah for our Lord who has wonderfully and carefully inspired and preserved His Word unto Man down through the ages!

mcgyver
Oct 6th 2008, 12:19 PM
Sorry...just now saw your question "what is the Johannine comma" :P

I'll highlight it for you. :)

1 John 5:7-8 (with comma)

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. (NKJV)

(Without comma)

For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.(NASB)

David Taylor
Oct 6th 2008, 12:26 PM
Rufus gives a good example above; of showing the differences between the Byzantine and Alexandrian families of manuscripts.

It should be noted that none of the English translations above neither added nor removed the 2nd phrase from I John 5:7.

The ones who include it; are from the Byzantine family of Greek manuscripts.
the ones who do not; are from the Alexandrian family of Greek manuscripts.

The modern English Bibles that we have today that do not have that phrase; were not translated from the earlier English translations; so "they didn't remove it"; however, they were translated from the Alexandrian Greek manuscripts which didn't have it within their Greek versions.

The puzzle to the case; is what do the original autographs say; "include or no"; and that we don't have.

Very old fragments of I John do and don't have it; and that phrase is also quoted in very old pre-nicene church father writings as well.

But as was also said earlier; having it or not having it doesn't effect the Bible's report on the godhead trinity whatsoever.

To remove the trinity from the scriptures would require removing and altering hundereds of verses; an abominacle mishandling that only the Muslim's Koran and the Watchtower's New World Translation endeavor to deceiptfully attempt.

mcgyver
Oct 6th 2008, 12:35 PM
I commend you on your research! **edit** post to which I was referring was deleted**

But as I stated earlier, there is simply not enough evidence one way or the other...

As we find (or should I say IF we find) more early manuscripts, the controversy would be cleared up...

Until then, we can be happy that God has revealed His Triune nature through out the scriptures!

kf4zmt
Oct 6th 2008, 05:58 PM
Did the original Greek manuscripts contain punctuation or is punctuation added when translated?

mcgyver
Oct 6th 2008, 06:29 PM
Punctuation was added when it was translated, as Koine Greek is written without punctuation :)

Infactingreekitmightlooksomethinglikethis

Emanate
Oct 7th 2008, 03:42 AM
"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein." - Jeremiah 6:16



Interesting you use a verse that is speaking of Torah for your prooftext that all but the KJV are evil.

Rufus_1611
Oct 7th 2008, 03:51 AM
Interesting you use a verse that is speaking of Torah for your prooftext that all but the KJV are evil. 1 John 5:7 is the most important verse in the Holy Bible to support the understanding of the Godhead. One line of Bibles retains this verse, the other line omits/truncates it. The old path kept it, the new path takes it out.

Emanate
Oct 7th 2008, 12:03 PM
1 John 5:7 is the most important verse in the Holy Bible to support the understanding of the Godhead. One line of Bibles retains this verse, the other line omits/truncates it. The old path kept it, the new path takes it out.


So would you say that one who does not believe in the Trinity is not saved?

Rufus_1611
Oct 7th 2008, 12:35 PM
So would you say that one who does not believe in the Trinity is not saved? I believe that salvation is by grace through faith and is only by the shed blood of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. I pray that if someone has that faith, but somehow misunderstands the nature of God, that he or she be saved by the mercy and grace of God. However, if I was face to face with someone who denied the Godhead, yet somehow proclaimed the blood of Jesus, I would intend to witness to them as though something very important was at stake.

mcgyver
Oct 7th 2008, 03:41 PM
I believe that salvation is by grace through faith and is only by the shed blood of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. I pray that if someone has that faith, but somehow misunderstands the nature of God, that he or she be saved by the mercy and grace of God. However, if I was face to face with someone who denied the Godhead, yet somehow proclaimed the blood of Jesus, I would intend to witness to them as though something very important was at stake.

I agree with Rufus here...there have been those (I personally know) who have received Christ and been born again, who had either no concept of the Trinity, or were unwilling to accept the Trinity.

However, as Christians (and at the leading of the Holy Spirit that resides within them) they have subsequently embraced the concept of the Trinity even without fully understanding it.

My answer would be: Belief in the Trinity is not a prerequisite for salvation, however one who rejects the Trinity after being saved is either fighting the Holy Spirit, under false teaching, not truly born-again, or any combination thereof.

Steven Avery
Oct 26th 2008, 01:04 AM
Hi Folks,

Nice thread.

One correction is important. First, McGyver, I agree with you on grammatical (and other internal) evidences being powerfully important, here the focus will be more on external evidences.

Also I noted after I wrote below that a some of what I share below you actually posted on another thread a couple of month's ago in an excellent post discussing the scribal aspects, so you may have simply written this one a bit hastily.

(http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1725846&postcount=11)http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1725846&postcount=11
Should 1 John 5:7 be in the KJV Bible ? - McGyver


the earliest manuscript that contains the comma is from the 14th century...and the comma is in a corrector's hand. That is 'extant Greek' MS, although a bit of an overstatement. There are about 10 Greek MS discussed, some from somewhat earlier (dates are often fudgy) and various situations of margin and text and this and that.

I say extant because with Greek MS we do not have all the MS today that existed 500-1000 years ago and there were reports of Greek MS in earlier times with the Johannine Comma. Including direct statements from Stephanus, who was very important in the excellent Reformation Textus Receptus history that brought forth the pure Bibles and the most excellent and majestic and pure King James Bible.

More directly significant, there are lots of earlier Old Latin and Vulgate MS extant from the 7th century on (which is quite early re: extant MSS with 1 John).

And early church writing referencing goes back to at least Cyprian in the 3rd century and then continually thereafter, a long and fascinating list, well worth study. Sometimes it is objected that the list is generally Latin writers, at least in the early centuries not Greek, however that objection is of limited utility.

These referencing include even the Council of Carthage in the 5th century, where the Johannine Comma was in the center of the Messiahology controversy and about 400 North African bishops attended. And the Lateran Council around 1200, which was translated fully to Greek, bridging west and east, north and south.

An amazing reference to study is the Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles, which was very discomfiting to Comma opponents with Jerome as the accepted author (the Prologue has his type of personal addressing in his style). So they claimed in the first intense Comma-opposition times (1600s) that the Prologue itself was a later forgery ! (Think how easy it is for liberals, skeptics and unbelievers to claim that various epistles of Peter and Paul are forgeries.) As a type of providential opposition and rebuke to their claims of a late forgery, Codex Fuldensis was seen in the 1800s to include the Prologue -- thus the Prologue was now centuries earlier than their claimed 'forgery'. And the Prologue was extant in a high-class manuscript much closer to the times of Jerome. Ironically the Codex Fuldensis itself has the discordance of the Prologue complaining of unfaithful translators and yet the verse is missing in the text, thus demonstrating that the Prologue had to be handed down from even earlier copies, ie. around the time of Jerome.

Oh, this Prologue was a significant aspect of the Erasmus correspondence with Stunica and Lee in the transition period which resulted in Erasmus placing the Johannine Comma in the later editions. A little sidenote: Erasmus actually has commentary on the verse in another writing, a point unmentioned almost everywhere.

Incidentally, re: the discussion about whether the original Jerome Vulgate included the Johannine Comma (this came up in the now-closed thread "Obscure question about the Johannine Comma") the answer is likely yes. We have no text for about 150 years so we cannot look at one specific MSS and say for sure. Overall, it is hard to see the usage at the Council of Carthage if the Johannine Comma is not in the Vulgate. And the various early references like Cassiodorus make much more sense with the verse included in early Vulgates. Similarly it is hard to explain the overall huge majority of Latin MSS with the Johannine Comma, how would that have occurred ? (This is similar to the Greek Byzantine MS superiority as pointed out by Professor Maurice Robinson.) And the Vulgate Prologue is a type of superb cake-icing. A first-person writing from Jerome speaking specifically of the Johannine Comma. And that clarity of words is why the weak forgery accusation became a necessity in the late 1600's when Comma-opposition-fervor was arising. And that accusation is still parroted by the lemming modern textcrits despite the discovery of Codex Fuldensis and against common sense and sound reasoning and scholarship. Remember though, that these liberal textcrits like the late Bruce Metzger have absolutely no compunction about similarly accusing 2 Peter of being a defacto forgery, or the Pastorals. Caveat emptor.

Overall, focusing on 'extant, Greek' MS can divert from the most salient issues. McGyver, I realize you weren't doing that, I simply want to place the quote above in context.

And no, much of the above information will not generally be discussed very sensibly, if at all, in the textcrit summaries that are seminary-popular.

One of the most obvious internal points (mentioned some by McGyver and maybe Excubitor on another thread) for those with common sense is that dropping of verses and phrases and words is rather commonplace in copying, accidentally and sometimes deliberately. While adding words is very dicey, very easy to be noticed, the new words will glare out at the reader and other churches and scribes. And thus be rejected, with the scribe who added in livelihood danger for deliberate falsification of the word of God. While the dropping of words is far less incendiary, there are lots of sensible reasons for omission to occur. (Notice e.g. the similarity of words in the ending of verses 7 and 8, a common skipping cause ..'homoeoteleuton'.) And even if dropped deliberately (both can occur in the history of a verse), which is very possible in doctrinally-charged verses, missing words are far less likely to be noticed because ... 'no one told me about them .. they weren't there'.

Which brings us, in closing, to the motto of the modern versions.

"Use the modern versions, you won't know what you are missing !"

And that includes the wonderful bold parts below, the heart of John's epistle.

1 John 5:7-8
For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness in earth,
the spirit, and the water, and the blood:
and these three agree in one.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY

Overste
Mar 7th 2017, 05:12 AM
That is 'extant Greek' MS, although a bit of an overstatement. There are about 10 Greek MS discussed, some from somewhat earlier (dates are often fudgy) and various situations of margin and text and this and that.


Not hardly. This is a late interpolation.




I say extant because with Greek MS we do not have all the MS today that existed 500-1000 years ago and there were reports of Greek MS in earlier times with the Johannine Comma.


"If evidence that does not exist actually DID exist, my position would be vindicated."

It's hard to imagine a more erroneous line of reasoning.




Including direct statements from Stephanus, who was very important in the excellent Reformation Textus Receptus history that brought forth the pure Bibles and the most excellent and majestic and pure King James Bible.


He just had his facts wrong - period.



More directly significant, there are lots of earlier Old Latin and Vulgate MS extant from the 7th century on (which is quite early re: extant MSS with 1 John).


Proving it's a Latin corruption....



And early church writing referencing goes back to at least Cyprian in the 3rd century and then continually thereafter, a long and fascinating list, well worth study. Sometimes it is objected that the list is generally Latin writers, at least in the early centuries not Greek, however that objection is of limited utility.


The Cyprian reference is a farce, as I've explained to you now for a decade.



These referencing include even the Council of Carthage in the 5th century, where the Johannine Comma was in the center of the Messiahology controversy and about 400 North African bishops attended. And the Lateran Council around 1200, which was translated fully to Greek, bridging west and east, north and south.

An amazing reference to study is the Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles, which was very discomfiting to Comma opponents with Jerome as the accepted author (the Prologue has his type of personal addressing in his style).


Not true and not one Latin scholar believes this because.....it's untrue.



So they claimed in the first intense Comma-opposition times (1600s) that the Prologue itself was a later forgery ! (Think how easy it is for liberals, skeptics and unbelievers to claim that various epistles of Peter and Paul are forgeries.) As a type of providential opposition and rebuke to their claims of a late forgery, Codex Fuldensis was seen in the 1800s to include the Prologue -- thus the Prologue was now centuries earlier than their claimed 'forgery'. And the Prologue was extant in a high-class manuscript much closer to the times of Jerome. Ironically the Codex Fuldensis itself has the discordance of the Prologue complaining of unfaithful translators and yet the verse is missing in the text, thus demonstrating that the Prologue had to be handed down from even earlier copies, ie. around the time of Jerome.


All of which would only be believed by folks who believe in unicorns and Peter Pan.



Oh, this Prologue was a significant aspect of the Erasmus correspondence with Stunica and Lee in the transition period which resulted in Erasmus placing the Johannine Comma in the later editions. A little sidenote: Erasmus actually has commentary on the verse in another writing, a point unmentioned almost everywhere.


Erasmus also knew it wasn't original.




Incidentally, re: the discussion about whether the original Jerome Vulgate included the Johannine Comma (this came up in the now-closed thread "Obscure question about the Johannine Comma") the answer is likely yes.


Only if by "yes" you mean "absolutely not."



We have no text for about 150 years so we cannot look at one specific MSS and say for sure.


Which wouldn't matter to the lost cause folks if we did.



Overall, it is hard to see the usage at the Council of Carthage if the Johannine Comma is not in the Vulgate. And the various early references like Cassiodorus make much more sense with the verse included in early Vulgates. Similarly it is hard to explain the overall huge majority of Latin MSS with the Johannine Comma, how would that have occurred ?


Not hard to explain at all. Most of those are late, too, and are NOT an independent witness anyway.




(This is similar to the Greek Byzantine MS superiority as pointed out by Professor Maurice Robinson.)


Actually, it's nothing like that at all.



And the Vulgate Prologue is a type of superb cake-icing. A first-person writing from Jerome speaking specifically of the Johannine Comma. And that clarity of words is why the weak forgery accusation became a necessity in the late 1600's when Comma-opposition-fervor was arising. And that accusation is still parroted by the lemming modern textcrits despite the discovery of Codex Fuldensis and against common sense and sound reasoning and scholarship. Remember though, that these liberal textcrits like the late Bruce Metzger have absolutely no compunction about similarly accusing 2 Peter of being a defacto forgery, or the Pastorals. Caveat emptor.


Ad hominem. Typical.



Overall, focusing on 'extant, Greek' MS can divert from the most salient issues. McGyver, I realize you weren't doing that, I simply want to place the quote above in context.


How do you know what was in manuscripts you've never seen? You don't. That leaves us with what? Extant MS. The Latin rush is only due to the lack of Greek evidence. Nobody would argue this way otherwise.



And no, much of the above information will not generally be discussed very sensibly, if at all, in the textcrit summaries that are seminary-popular.


Because it's a non-issue.



One of the most obvious internal points (mentioned some by McGyver and maybe Excubitor on another thread) for those with common sense is that dropping of verses and phrases and words is rather commonplace in copying, accidentally and sometimes deliberately. While adding words is very dicey, very easy to be noticed, the new words will glare out at the reader and other churches and scribes. And thus be rejected, with the scribe who added in livelihood danger for deliberate falsification of the word of God. While the dropping of words is far less incendiary, there are lots of sensible reasons for omission to occur. (Notice e.g. the similarity of words in the ending of verses 7 and 8, a common skipping cause ..'homoeoteleuton'.) And even if dropped deliberately (both can occur in the history of a verse), which is very possible in doctrinally-charged verses, missing words are far less likely to be noticed because ... 'no one told me about them .. they weren't there'.


Unless you're arguing addition NEVER happens, this is irrelevant. And btw - the homoioteleuton nonsense was debunked years ago and most recently by yours truly.



Which brings us, in closing, to the motto of the modern versions.

"Use the modern versions, you won't know what you are missing !"

And that includes the wonderful bold parts below, the heart of John's epistle.

1 John 5:7-8
For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness in earth,
the spirit, and the water, and the blood:
and these three agree in one.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY



Debate challenge still out there for you.

Steven Avery
Mar 9th 2017, 05:37 PM
The ones who include it; are from the Byzantine family of Greek manuscripts. the ones who do not; are from the Alexandrian family of Greek manuscripts.We should not claim that the heavenly witnesses are in the "Byzantine family of Greek manuscripts". It mostly dropped out of that line rather early. Incredible evidences were left, like the solecism, but the extant manuscripts show us little Byzantine ms availability in the period after 500. A restoration began around 1200, starting with the Lateran council. We do have solid evidences from the early Greek writings.


Not hardly. This is a late interpolation. "If evidence that does not exist actually DID exist, my position would be vindicated." It's hard to imagine a more erroneous line of reasoning. He just had his facts wrong - period. roving it's a Latin corruption.... The Cyprian reference is a farce, as I've explained to you now for a decade. Not true and not one Latin scholar believes this because.....it's untrue. All of which would only be believed by folks who believe in unicorns and Peter Pan. Erasmus also knew it wasn't original. Only if by "yes" you mean "absolutely not." Which wouldn't matter to the lost cause folks if we did. Not hard to explain at all. Most of those are late, too, and are NOT an independent witness anyway. Actually, it's nothing like that at all. Ad hominem. Typical. How do you know what was in manuscripts you've never seen? You don't. That leaves us with what? Extant MS. The Latin rush is only due to the lack of Greek evidence. Nobody would argue this way otherwise. Because it's a non-issue. Unless you're arguing addition NEVER happens, this is irrelevant. And btw - the homoioteleuton nonsense was debunked years ago and most recently by yours truly. Debate challenge still out there for you. A few errors. Assertions without evidence. Nothing substantive. Typical quick and worthless writing.

A better way: take one or two points, and try to engage in a helpful manner, iron shapeneth.

Steven

jeffcraig
Mar 9th 2017, 09:54 PM
Did the original Greek manuscripts contain punctuation or is punctuation added when translated?

HEBREW did not have punctuation either, and was much better, was first, and is much different than the much later greek and western thought(s).

Athanasius
Mar 9th 2017, 10:11 PM
A few errors. Assertions without evidence. Nothing substantive. Typical quick and worthless writing.

A better way: take one or two points, and try to engage in a helpful manner, iron shapeneth.

Steven

He's taken the time to respond point by point, so why don't you give it a try for those of us who aren't privy to your decade long personal spat? You know, since this is a 9 year old thread, and some of us reading are interested in the exchange.

Steven Avery
Mar 10th 2017, 01:21 PM
He's taken the time to respond point by point, so why don't you give it a try for those of us who aren't privy to your decade long personal spat? You know, since this is a 9 year old thread, and some of us reading are interested in the exchange.Saying something like :

"The Cyprian reference is a farce, as I've explained to you now for a decade."

is NOT a point-to-point reply.

If we have a discussion thread on it on CARM, he should link to the discussion. You will see, without our spending hours, that saying the reference is a farce is itself an unscholarly joke. Really it is scholastically sick to speak in that way, even if you do not believe that Cyprian had the verse in his Bible.

Steven

Overste
Mar 11th 2017, 11:25 AM
He's taken the time to respond point by point, so why don't you give it a try for those of us who aren't privy to your decade long personal spat? You know, since this is a 9 year old thread, and some of us reading are interested in the exchange.


Athanasius,

I'm about to give him what he just asked for. When I am finished, the readers of this thread will be more illumined on the issue. While I know full well that no convert will be made of Mr Avery himself, my replies will no doubt succeed in preventing converts to his views.

Overste
Mar 11th 2017, 11:26 AM
A better way: take one or two points, and try to engage in a helpful manner, iron shapeneth.

Steven

Here are one or two points, sir:

1) I will answer ALL of your points in detail.

2) Iron can only sharpen iron if BOTH are iron.

Steven Avery
Mar 11th 2017, 11:34 AM
convert will be made of Mr Avery himself. This is simply an insult to the forum.

We are talking about the word of God!
And whether this full section with the beautiful parallelism of both heavenly and earthly witnesses:

1 John 5:7-8
For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness in earth,
the spirit, and the water, and the blood:
and these three agree in one.

is the pure word of God. As in the traditional Reformation Bible. Or whether the text is mangled to be only the earthly witnesses.
Even if you have a preference to thinking that the bold is not scripture:

We are NOT talking about "making converts."

Please stop insulting the forum.

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

In addition, under the:

Bill Brown theory of creating and defending deliberate misquotion

I could say that Bill Brown is even worse, claiming that I am "fabricating disciples" since those two words are listed as synonyms to "making" and "converts". Under the Bill Brown theory, placed on this forum the last few days, you can change words around if you can find them in a thesaurus listed as a synonym. This theory of course, shows a great misunderstanding of how language works and what is the definition of a synonym (which is NOT "identical word-meaning without differences of nuance and usage")

Bill Brown has not even had the integrity to say that he will not continue to deliberately misquote again and again in the future, by changing my words to his cherry-picked synonym, and then putting the new words, that I never wrote, in quotes!

Integrity first!

Let's get straight what is done on this forum first, before trying to mangle events way over the horizon from five years ago in distant lands.
This deliberate misquoting is NOT a minor issue. It is a stake in the heart of respectful discourse, including scholastic discourse.

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

Steven

Overste
Mar 11th 2017, 11:46 AM
A good portion of the information in the next few posts debunking Mr Avery's position is taken from my Master's thesis, "AN EVALUATION OF THE INTERNAL SUPPORT FOR THE COMMA JOHANNEUM," submitted to the faculty at Dallas Seminary on November 14, 2013. Note that the inauthenticity of the Comma Johanneum - just like the non-19th century status of Aleph - is a settled issue never to be overturned. To the extent people even care nowadays, I will respond to Avery's points, virtually all of which are unbalanced at best.






Also I noted after I wrote below that a some of what I share below you actually posted on another thread a couple of month's ago in an excellent post discussing the scribal aspects, so you may have simply written this one a bit hastily.

(http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1725846&postcount=11)http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1725846&postcount=11
Should 1 John 5:7 be in the KJV Bible ? - McGyver

That is 'extant Greek' MS, although a bit of an overstatement. There are about 10 Greek MS discussed, some from somewhat earlier (dates are often fudgy) and various situations of margin and text and this and that. I say extant because with Greek MS we do not have all the MS today that existed 500-1000 years ago and there were reports of Greek MS in earlier times with the Johannine Comma.


What makes this assertion particularly egregious is this: Avery argues from the standpoint of preservation of the text. And yet the position is inconsistent with EXISTING evidence. Presumably in this mythical view, God "preserved" ALL of His Words but they were scattered all over the place and then in 1611 the KJV translators put it all back together for us. Of course, the proof this position is not even necessary is the fact that if true it means the church somehow managed to survive for over 1500 years without an actual "pure and perfect Bible." (If the KJVO apologists wish to argue that we have ALWAYS had one of these, they need to be able to explain which one(s) it/they were).

The problem is simple: we can only go on the evidence of EXTANT manuscripts. We literally have no way of knowing what was in manuscripts none of us ever saw. The problem peculiar to the CJ (1 John 5:7 in the KJV) is that despite possessing over 500 manuscripts that contain 1 John, only NINE have the Comma. Note the MSS AND their dates:

1) 61—Codex Montfortianus, a sixteenth-century manuscript
2) 88—a variant reading in a sixteenth-century hand, added to the fourteenth-century codex Regius of Naples
3) 177—a marginal note that post-dates 1551
4) 221—a variant reading added to a tenth-century manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford
5) 429—a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Wolfenbüttel
6) 629 (Codex Ottobonianus)—a fourteenth or fifteenth-century Latin-Greek diglot that has been revised according to the Vulgate
7) 636—a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Naples
8) 918—an Escorial sixteenth-century manuscript
9) 2318—an eighteenth-century manuscript in Bucharest.


Mr Avery's assertions that "dates are often fudgy" is an attempt to mitigate the simple reality: this was not anywhere to be found in the actual Greek manuscript until about the 14th century. Five of these nine have the readings in the margin from later hands. Hence, to try and say "221 is a tenth-century manuscript that has the Comma" is disingenuous if the writer doesn't mention that the Comma is added CENTURIES later. Dates are nowhere near as elastic as Avery is attempting to suggest here.

Now, Avery is correct that we do not have every Greek manuscript from 500-1000 years earlier.

But so what? This does not seem to have affected the rest of the Bible text all that much. In essence, Avery is trying to argue preservation while simultaneously giving an explanation that the reading was NOT preserved in EXTANT manuscripts but only in invisible ones - perhaps even mythical ones.

It should be noted here that inherent in this argument is the realization that manuscripts DO matter!!! Why? Because the pro-CJ position is simultaneously trying to have it both ways by saying "well, it IS in this small number of manuscripts but it PROBABLY/MIGHT have been in a bunch of manuscripts that no longer exist."

Manuscripts do matter. If a doctrinally significant reading like the CJ can disappear from Greek for over a millennium then there is no reason to believe preservation ever occurred at all. The pro-Comma position argues "preservation" but REALLY means "restoration of lost passages."

TrustGzus
Mar 11th 2017, 12:03 PM
I'll add that Crypian is not great evidence. He never says he's quoting John. He doesn't quote any other part of 1 John to give testimony to the source. He doesn't even quote it verbatim. He says "Son" instead of "Word". To say "the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and these three are one" isn't a very complicated phrase that means it must be a quote of a verse in 1 John. Crypian is in my opinion, a weak circumstantial piece. It could be supportive of good evidence if it exists, but by itself it doesn't prove anything.

Also many guys that are very pro-KJV dispute(d) the verse. Chuck Smith and J. Vernon McGee were two men who preferred the KJV yet claimed this was an addition.

Furthermore, so much of the scholarship that denies the authenticity of the verse are deeply Trinitarian. They'd love to have the verse. The fact that they state it isn't authentic when it would help their theology in some fashion should be taken quite seriously.

Also, in early councils where the Trinity was discussed there is no record of discussion of 1 John 5:7. That's a glaring omission from these early councils. Why would they fail to mention such a verse? I know one reason. Perhaps they didn't know such a verse because it hadn't been added yet.

Overste
Mar 11th 2017, 12:21 PM
More directly significant, there are lots of earlier Old Latin and Vulgate MS extant from the 7th century on (which is quite early re: extant MSS with 1 John).


1) There are not "lots of earlier Old Latin" MSS - because there aren't that many in the first place.
2) By Avery's own admission, these are "from the 7th century on," also known as "FIVE CENTURIES after the beginning of the usage of Latin" and virtually useless in determining that it was in Greek (more on this in a moment)
3) Despite Avery's assertion, these are not "quite early"
4) At this point there should be an obvious question in everyone's mind: how did this passage manage to vanish completely from Greek - under the assumption the original author wrote it - AND vanish completely from Syriac (derived from Greek) AND be mostly gone in the early centuries from Latin? Why is its only existence for a millennium in Latin? Answer: because it is a Latin corruption.

To arrive at any conclusion other than that is to engage in wishful thinking or myth-making. "Well, John wrote it but it fell out because of homoioteleuton." Really? It managed to fall out of EVERY manuscript copied in the early centuries? 30-40-50 scribes all made this exact same mistake and not one noticed it at the time? I'll have more to say on this later.


Furthermore, to even argue from Latin is a flawed assumption in the first place due to the simple fact that Latin - particularly in the early years - is an utter mess. In fact, it was this utter mess in the OLD Latin that caused Jerome to tell Pope Damasus, tot enim sunt exemplaria paene quot codices (“There are almost as many versions as manuscripts”). Augustine noted at almost the exact same time [Doct. chr, II. 16]: Qui enim Scripturas ex hebraea lingua in graecam verterunt, numerari possunt, Latini autem interpretes nullo modo. Ut enim cuique primis fidei temporibus in manus venit codex graecus, et aliquantulum facultatis sibi utriusque linguae habere videbatur, ausus est interpretari. ("Those who translated the Scriptures from Hebrew into Greek can be counted, but the Latin translators are out of all number. For in the early days of the faith, every man who happened to gain possession of a Greek manuscript [of the New Testament] and who imagined that he had any facility in both languages however slight that might have been, dared to make a translation").

It is further flawed as noted by one of the greatest Latin text-critical scholars of the 20th century, Bonifatius Fischer:

"A Latin text-type is normally but ONE witness for the Greek Vorlage, no matter how many single Latin witnesses represent the text-type. Consequently, the Fathers who quote the Vulgate are not independent witnesses for the Greek; r (64) and Augustine are only ONE witness for Paul's letters, just as d (75), g (77), and Lucifer stand together; similarly, g (51) and Lucifer in Acts, k (1) and Cyprian in the Gospels, etc. This holds true also when the individual Latin witnesses are numerous" (Fischer, as quoted in Metzger, 1977: 362)


This was further extrapolated by Jacobus Petzer in the first edition of the 1994 Metzge Festschrift (note: I worked on the Majority Text article that Wallace submitted for the SECOND edition in 2012):

"It is in this aspect that one can judge the value of this (Latin) version for the reconstruction of the history of the Greek text. Again Fischer has aptly dealt with the theory of this matter in his brief survey of the Old Latin NT, and I need not repeat it here; it will suffice to refer briefly to the two main points of the theory. The first is that the Latin version does not have any direct bearing on the "original' text" (autographs) of the NT. It is much too late for that. Its only value as a direct witness, therefore, is to the history of the Greek text, insofar as it had contact with that history. Second, it is not so much the individual Latin witnesses that are important for reconstructing the history of the Greek text, but rather the text-types because they represent a revision on the basis of (a) Greek MS(S). This point is important, since it is only the text-type that had consistent contact with Greek evidence. No doubt individual Fathers and scribes did have passing contact with Greek evidence, and this contact did influence their Latin text on occasion. But that this contact was in passing and inconsistent makes it worthless for reconstructing the history of the Greek text, as it cannot really be evaluated. Furthermore, in evaluating the evidence of these text-types, it is important to see that each text-type represents only one Greek witness, the one that is assumed to have formed the Vorlage on which the revision was based." (Petzer, "The Latin Version of the New Testament," in "The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis" by Ehrman-Holmes, 1994: 124)

"Text-types are thus identified by means of differences in patterns of vocabulary and diction in the different Latin witnesses as well as differences in their relation to the Greek text. This specific definition of text-type used in this research makes the research both easier and more difficult. It makes it easier in the sense that one works with a more defined or dixed definition of what one is to search for. What makes it more difficult, however, is the state of the evidence, since it is clear what is available today represents only a small part of what once existed and that this part does not come from the main line of developments. The MSS, representing what is called the direct tradition, are not only fragmentary but also often very late. This makes it difficult to decide where and how particular MSS relate to others. What makes the matter worse is that almost every MS is of a mixed nature. Most probably not one single 'pure' Latin MS of the first millennium has survived. Every VG MS of the period contains OL readings in a greater or lesser extent, and every OL MSS seems to have been contaminated to some extent by Vg readings. Even in the MSS with a predominantly OL text, apparently few contain a text that represents one of the OL text-types 'purely.' They are all mixed." (Ibid., 119)


At this point, the verdict is clear from the Latin scholars who actually work with the manuscripts: you CANNOT go vindicate a Greek reading that lacks evidence by appealing to Latin. You also CANNOT start arguing about all these alleged thousands (and in the case of 1 John about 800) of manuscripts as independent witnesses - because they are NOT. People who work with the data know this.


Note Petzer's words - "worthless" in terms of constructing what the original Greek was.

It should be noted that attempting to dismiss these arguments as "old" inevitably fails. Burton wrote the updated article in the second edition of the Metzger Festschrift ("The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis" by Ehrman-Holmes, 2012: 167-201). In that article, while distancing himself from two of the particulars, Burton recommends three essays for illumination about the Latin version:

1) the Fischer article (Das Neue Testament in lateinischer Sprache. Der gegenwärtige Stand seiner Erforschung und seine Bedeutung für die griechische Textgeschichte, in: Die alten Übersetzungen des Neuen Testaments, die Kirchenväterzitate und Lektionare. Der gegenwärtige Stand ihrer Erforschung und ihre Bedeutung für die griechische Textgeschichte (Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Textforschung), hrsg. von Kurt Aland, Berlin 1972, 2–92); 2

2) Metzer's "Early Versions," 1977 (which Fischer wrote a substantial portion and had it translated)

3) J.K. Elliott, "Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt"


(Note: if you cannot read German - as all PhDs in textual criticism and NT Studies DO - perhaps you should not be commenting on the subject. And for those wondering, yes - though a bit painstaking from not using for awhile, I studied German IN Germany under Frau Schindler in 1983).

Even in Burton's article, which takes minimal variation from Petzer, Burton notes, "Of course, we cannot claim that every feature of every Latin reading goes back to the Greek; it is not always possible to infer a variant Greek reading on the basis of Latin. But few scholars would make such a claim in any case." (Burton in Ehrman-Holmes, 2012: 191). In the footnote, Burton goes further by citing his own 2000 work "The Old Latin Gospels" and writing, "there are many occasionas where it is simply impossible to tell whetehr a form or Latin text represents a variation in the Greek."

A few pages later (193) Burton notes, "Very often the Latin does not allow us to reconstruct the precise wording of its Vorlage; even where we can with some confidence do so, the reconstructed readings on occasion provide us with valuable evidence for early readings, which deseve evaluation on their own merits."


It is simply unanimous from those who actually work with this stuff: You cannot just go grab a variant and start citing Latin witnesses for it. To do so is unscholarly, at variance with the evidence, and wrong. I should also note here that I am only aware of ONE Latin scholar - Thiele - who sees Cyprian as quoting the Comma Johanneum. By his own testimony he is the sole voice. However - Thiele also REJECTS the originality of the Comma, meaning that even the one Latin scholar who sees a quotation by Cyprian does NOT see it as being of particular importance at demonstrating originality.


I'll add that Crypian is not great evidence. He never says he's quoting John. He doesn't quote any other part of 1 John to give testimony to the source. He doesn't even quote it verbatim. He says "Son" instead of "Word". To say "the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and these three are one" isn't a very complicated phrase that means it must be a quote of a verse in 1 John. Crypian is in my opinion, a weak circumstantial piece. It could be supportive of good evidence if it exists, but by itself it doesn't prove anything.

Also many guys that are very pro-KJV dispute(d) the verse. Chuck Smith and J. Vernon McGee were two men who preferred the KJV yet claimed this was an addition.

Furthermore, so much of the scholarship that denies the authenticity of the verse are deeply Trinitarian. They'd love to have the verse. The fact that they state it isn't authentic when it would help their theology in some fashion should be taken quite seriously.

Also, in early councils where the Trinity was discussed there is no record of discussion of 1 John 5:7. That's a glaring omission from these early councils. Why would they fail to mention such a verse? I know one reason. Perhaps they didn't know such a verse because it hadn't been added yet.

I will touch on this shortly. Good points.

Overste
Mar 11th 2017, 12:24 PM
Including direct statements from Stephanus, who was very important in the excellent Reformation Textus Receptus history that brought forth the pure Bibles and the most excellent and majestic and pure King James Bible.


Carson refuted this in 1979. Have you not read the work? Stephanus was simply wrong. Where are these 9 out of 16 manuscripts now?

Overste
Mar 11th 2017, 12:40 PM
And early church writing referencing goes back to at least Cyprian in the 3rd century and then continually thereafter, a long and fascinating list, well worth study. Sometimes it is objected that the list is generally Latin writers, at least in the early centuries not Greek, however that objection is of limited utility.


Since Avery requested information, information he shall receive.

The Evidence AGAINST Cyprian Quoting The Comma Johanneum (Brown, 2013: 32-36)

1) It is not a verbatim quotation.

A verbatim quotation would reference the “Father, Word, and Holy Spirit,” a distinctive phrase that occurs nowhere else in Scripture. Cyprian quotes “Son,” (filio) not “Word” (verbum). Although verbatim quoting is not always determinative, it plays an important role in evaluating patristic citations. In the immediate context of the quotation (et tres unum sunt), Cyprian references many Scriptures, including Gen 7:20; Matt 12:20; John 10:30; 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:23; and1 Pet 3:20. It is therefore possible that he was referencing the language of Matt 28:19 combined with 1 John 5:8. The quotation does not reference anything distinctly found in the Comma.

2) The phrase et tres unum sunt occurs regardless of whether the Comma is included.

If Cyprian’s tendency was to quote Scripture verbatim, it is difficult to believe that he would have said “Son” (Filio) if he read “Word” (Verbum) in his text. This is a double-edged sword: Comma advocates insist Cyprian quoted textually but overlook the fact he never quotes “Father, Word, and Holy Spirit.” This quotation suggests that at least one of those two assumptions is incorrect or perhaps overstated.

3) Cyprian sometimes used allegorical interpretation even in places where his quotations seem text-based.

In chapter seven of Unit. eccl, Cyprian proposes an unlikely allegorical interpretation of John 19:23:
These are the words of Holy Scripture: Now as to His coat, because it was from the upper part woven throughout without a seam, they said to one another: Let us not divide it, but let us cast lots for it, whose it shall be. The ‘oneness’ with which He was clothed came ‘from the upper part,’ that is, from His Father in heaven, and could in no way be divided by whoever came to acquire it: it retained its well-knit wholeness indivisibly. That man cannot possess the garment of Christ, who rends and divides the Church of Christ.

Bèvenot acknowledges that this is a “forced interpretation” by Cyprian, and it is enabled “because of the order of the words” in Cyprian’s Latin Scripture. The point is not to impugn Cyprian’s interpretation but rather to observe that he did on occasion utilize allegory or mystical interpretation. This is one reason why most scholars believe the Comma rose from a similar occurrence.

4) The Latin copies of 1 John offer “support for a whole set of readings that have little or no attestation in Greek.”

Brooke provides a listing of various “explanatory glosses” given by Augustine and Cyprian as well as some glosses found in the Speculum. Cyprian glosses the texts of 1 John 2:9; 2:16; and 4:3. Cyprian’s tendency to gloss the text combined with the problems evaluating patristic citations suggest the tentative possibility that: 1) Cyprian is the source of the Comma; or 2) Cyprian demonstrates the process that gave rise to it. The fact that a quotation is found in his writings does not necessarily mean it was drawn from the text of the New Testament. It must be remembered that the Vulgate was commissioned because there were so many variant readings in the Old Latin as early as the third century. This multiplicity of Old Latin readings led Augustine to say: Those who translated the Scriptures from Hebrew into Greek can be counted, but the Latin translators are out of all number. For in the early days of the faith, every man who happened to gain possession of a Greek manuscript [of the New Testament] and who imagined that he had any facility in both languages however slight that might have been, dared to make a translation.
This presents a peculiar problem for pro-Comma advocates because the Latin manuscript situation at the time was so diverse that numerous patristic citations exist. The mere existence of such citations, however, does not prove their authenticity.


5) Why did Augustine, who lived at the time of the Arian controversy, did not bother to invoke the Comma in his writings?

Cyprian was the prime influence on North African Christianity from the period of his episcopate until the time of Augustine. Cyprian’s writings were revered for over four centuries as one step below Scripture, and Augustine so revered Cyprian that he presented at least a dozen sermons celebrating a memorial feast to Cyprian. Nowhere in any of his writings does Augustine quote the Comma. Such a scenario is unlikely if Cyprian quoted the Comma.

6) The most devastating argument suggesting that Cyprian did not quote the Comma is found by reading Cyprian’s other references to the Trinity.

The most likely place to find an explicit reference to the Comma is in a Trinitarian polemic. Although he never wrote an extended treatise on the doctrine, Cyprian referenced the Trinity numerous times. In one epistle he writes: "The Lord, when, after His resurrection, He sent forth His apostles, charges them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you."

This verbiage is obviously drawn from the end of Matthew’s Gospel.

Such reasoning, however, cannot explain the following words from Cyprian, an instance that begs for a reference to the Comma if indeed he had it: "In the forty-fourth Psalm: “My heart has breathed out a good Word. I tell my works to the King.” Also in the thirty-second Psalm: “By the Word of God were the heavens made fast; and all their strength by the breath of His mouth.” Also in Isaiah: “A Word completing and shortening in righteousness, because a shortened word will God make in the whole earth.” Also in the cvith Psalm: “He sent His Word, and healed them.” Moreover, in the Gospel according to John: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. The same with in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.” Also in the Apocalypse: “And I saw the heaven opened, and lo, a white horse; and he who sate upon him was called Faithful and True, judging rightly and justly; and He made war. And He was covered with a garment sprinkled with blood; and His name is called the Word of God.”

Cyprian finds references to Christ as “the Word of God” in Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, the Gospel of John, and Revelation but never mentions the Comma, the most explicit testimony to Christ as “the Word” outside of John’s gospel. While many other instances could be considered debatable, this lack of quotation strongly suggests that Cyprian never saw the Comma. Given his chain reference method of citing every instance of Christ as the Word in this treatise, his failure to cite the Comma is best explained by the lack of the phrase in his text(s).


CONCLUSION (pp 39-40)

One objection to this interpretation of the patristic (as well as manuscript) data is to allege that it constitutes nothing more than argumentum ex silentio. In other words, although a multitude of Trinitarian church writers never mention the Comma, this does not constitute evidence. There is some validity to such an objection because the Catholic Epistles are among the least cited of the NT books. One cannot necessarily assume that just because a patristic writer did not quote a passage that he did not have it in his text.

The problem, however, is that this particular passage is not one of the numerous “begat” passages or a verse that occurs in three gospels with slight alteration; it is the most explicit text in the NT regarding the Trinity, a controversy that consumed the church for more than two centuries and through numerous ecumenical councils. What orthodox writer is not going to quote this particular passage if it is in his text? If a passage is not found in the manuscripts of a particular time then silence should be expected.

Furthermore, the objection is inconsistent with one of the major appeals made by pro-Comma advocates, the quotation of the Comma Johanneum at Carthage in the late fifth century. A congregation of hundreds of bishops confessed their faith at Carthage in 484. Pro-Comma advocates appeal to this citation as evidence of the early existence of the reading. The reading is unquestionably quoted at Carthage, but the appeal is inconsistent. It is inconceivable that the councils of Nicea, Hippo, or Carthage that affirmed the doctrine of the Trinity possessed this text yet failed to cite it. Pro-Comma advocates want to insist that quotation is ironclad evidence of the reading but that lack of quotation is of no significance whatsoever. As noted earlier, this appeal may be valid regarding “begat” passages but is a form of special pleading concerning the Trinity. Noting the lack of citation by early church fathers in conjunction with lack of manuscript testimony is not an argument from silence but rather evidence from silence that the reading does not exist. It is inconceivable that the church failed to cite this passage if it existed. The silence of both the patristic evidence and the manuscripts speaks loudly.

========


I pause only to note that Avery is trying to have it both ways. He wants to declare the citation of the passage at Carthage in 484 is a "super evidence" (his words from elsewhere, I will document only if he denies he said it) but then wants to say that the mere fact it was NOT cited at earlier councils declaring the Trinity is nothing more than an argument from silence.

As I noted above - if you don't have the text then silence is going to happen. And let's be very reasonable in our common sense here: IF this text actually DID exist does anyone for even one second think the church council would NOT use it? The very citation of it at Carthage proves otherwise.

The KJVO objection is to say that "well, the passage 'could be' interpreted as the Sabellians did and therefore its exclusion might have been because it wasn't strong enough." Of course, if this were true then the early church writings would be FILLED with arguments answering Sabellian objections (and Arian ones) using this passage.

In this case, the sound of silence speaks volumes.

TrustGzus
Mar 11th 2017, 01:00 PM
I was reading Augustine's homilies on 1 John yesterday and noticed he didn't include it. Thanks for bringing up that point as I forgot to mention it.

Overste
Mar 11th 2017, 01:07 PM
An amazing reference to study is the Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles, which was very discomfiting to Comma opponents with Jerome as the accepted author (the Prologue has his type of personal addressing in his style).


A lot of people believed a lot of wrong things. This isn't evidence of anything at all save the ignorance of people. Arguing "at one time people thought X" as if that makes what they thought true is beyond absurd.




So they claimed in the first intense Comma-opposition times (1600s) that the Prologue itself was a later forgery ! (Think how easy it is for liberals, skeptics and unbelievers to claim that various epistles of Peter and Paul are forgeries.)


I'm going to address this in a moment. You've now had nearly two years to come up with an answer, so I hope you will finally provide one. Nevertheless, this is an amusing attack in light of the fact there is literally NOBODY nowadays who has studied the issue impartially who holds that Jerome authored it. It isn't just liberals denying Jerome authorship of the VP, and it never was.

Think how easily - along the same lines - it is for a person to claim a 4th century manuscript is a 19th century MSS and even allege that a textual critic intentionally treated the manuscript with lemon juice despite the fact there is zero evidence this ever happened.





As a type of providential opposition and rebuke to their claims of a late forgery, Codex Fuldensis was seen in the 1800s to include the Prologue -- thus the Prologue was now centuries earlier than their claimed 'forgery'. And the Prologue was extant in a high-class manuscript much closer to the times of Jerome. Ironically the Codex Fuldensis itself has the discordance of the Prologue complaining of unfaithful translators and yet the verse is missing in the text, thus demonstrating that the Prologue had to be handed down from even earlier copies, ie. around the time of Jerome.


Does anyone else find it interesting that Avery says there was some sort of 'providential opposition' to people? I mean, was God somehow incapable of keeping the reading in the Greek text in the first place? Appeals to providence can be made by anyone, and they're usually worthless. Or couldn't 'providential opposition' have simply had the reading IN the text?


=====
So now I ask two more questions Avery has refused to answer for two years:

Do you accept the following?

1) Paul, an apostle not of men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ, unto the brethren that are at Laodicea.

After all, Paul mentions this in Col. 4:16. It's in the first-person from Paul. So according to YOU, Paul wrote this, right? Incidentally, the oldest known Bible copy of this epistle is in a Fulda manuscript written for Victor of Capua in 546 - right around the time of Codex Fuldensis.

So are you CONSISTENT here? Or do you REJECT your argument as presented here? (This is no problem for me since I consider both to be forged).

2) These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded.

First-person claim and dated even closer to the gospels (esp late dates) than the VP.....
=========

So just answer the questions please. These meet your stated criteria for authorship. So do you accept them as authentic or not?



Oh, this Prologue was a significant aspect of the Erasmus correspondence with Stunica and Lee in the transition period which resulted in Erasmus placing the Johannine Comma in the later editions. A little sidenote: Erasmus actually has commentary on the verse in another writing, a point unmentioned almost everywhere.


Erasmus rejected the authenticity of the Comma. Indeed, that is the second most important aspect of his involvement with it.

Overste
Mar 11th 2017, 01:11 PM
I was reading Augustine's homilies on 1 John yesterday and noticed he didn't include it. Thanks for bringing up that point as I forgot to mention it.

Incidentally, let me tell you what his response to this is going to be - he's going to allege that Augustine knew about it but intentionally didn't quote it (e.g. he's going to engage in mind reading). FWIW, I covered this nonsense, too:

In a footnote to my comment about Augustine: "Norbert Fickermann, “St. Augustinus gegen das ‘Comma Johaneum’?” BZ 22 (1934), 350-58, suggests Augustine knew the Comma but intentionally did not quote it. Scholarly consensus rejects this speculation."

I mean, seriously...how can anyone say this? Fickermann derived this line of reasoning from ONE obscure reference some 700 years or so later. I have his paper around here somewhere (it's the only article I've ever had trouble finding - and one of the many people who have been personally attacked by Mr Avery emailed it to me about five years ago). The paper is irresponsible and deservedly obscure.

Overste
Mar 11th 2017, 01:43 PM
Incidentally, re: the discussion about whether the original Jerome Vulgate included the Johannine Comma (this came up in the now-closed thread "Obscure question about the Johannine Comma") the answer is likely yes.


Only if by "yes" you mean "absolutely not."





We have no text for about 150 years so we cannot look at one specific MSS and say for sure.


And yet you have a stated view on manuscripts you've never seen....for the second time in this post....



Overall, it is hard to see the usage at the Council of Carthage if the Johannine Comma is not in the Vulgate.


It isn't difficult at all given the plethora and mess of readings in Latin. You're ASSUMING there was ONE canonical Latin text everyone had. If that was true then there was no need for the Vulgate in the first place. Do you really think the scenario is overly improved in the century of hand copying between Jerome and Carthage?



And the various early references like Cassiodorus make much more sense with the verse included in early Vulgates.


Given the fact patristic citations are notoriously flexible, this is another case of you simply assuming everyone everywhere quoted a singular Bible text - an assumption at variance with every single shred of evidence in existence.



Similarly it is hard to explain the overall huge majority of Latin MSS with the Johannine Comma, how would that have occurred ?


But wouldn't this ALSO be true for Greek? And Syriac? This is why this argument is so poor. Furthermore, as I stated above, you don't count MANUSCRIPTS as individual witnesses in Latin (as you do Greek IF they can be substantiated as independent witnesses). This alleged huge number of witnesses is simply a bad argument on your part, demonstrating (mostly) unfamiliarity with the subject.

You also don't bother to disclose these many MSS have a particular locale or association (mostly Spanish or French).



(This is similar to the Greek Byzantine MS superiority as pointed out by Professor Maurice Robinson.)


Actually, it's NOTHING like that at all. Indeed, I doubt you've read Robinson's argument.

ROBINSON
The Byzantine-priority position (or especially the so-called "majority text" position) is often caricatured as only interested in the weight of numbers and simple "nose-counting" of MSS when attempting to restore the original form of the NT text. Aside from the fact that such a mechanical and simplistic method would offer no solution in the many places where the Byzantine Textform is divided among its mass of witnesses, such a caricature leads one to infer that no serious application of principles of NT textual criticism exist within such a theory. This of course is not correct.

Indeed, the present theory in many respects remains quite close to that of Westcott and Hort; the primary variance is reflected in certain key assumptions and a few less obvious principles.

Wherever possible, the raw number of MSS should be intelligently reduced. "Genealogical method" is accepted whenever such can be firmly established. "Family" groups such as f1 and f13 have long been cited under one siglum, and a few MSS are known copies of earlier extant witnesses. In many other cases a close genealogical connection can be established and thus mere numbers can be reduced in a proper manner.

Manuscripts still need to be weighed and not merely counted. This principle encompassed the intelligent reduction of witnesses based upon proven genealogical ties. Yet all MSS still need to be categorized regarding their text-critical value and "weight." A basic component of "weight" is the transcriptional reliability of a MS. A later MS may preserve an earlier form of text; a well-copied MS may preserve an inferior form of text; a poorly-copied MS may preserve an otherwise superior form of text. The effects upon transmission caused by individual scribal practice need to be taken into consideration when assigning a particular "weight" to a given MS at any point of variation. Thus, a determination of individual scribal habits becomes of prime importance.
========

In point of fact, the R-P and W-H method (the one you impugn) are not nearly so far apart as non-experts wish to suggest (neither, in fact, is the H-F Majority Text, as Fee pointed out to Pickering in 1978).






And the Vulgate Prologue is a type of superb cake-icing. A first-person writing from Jerome speaking specifically of the Johannine Comma. And that clarity of words is why the weak forgery accusation became a necessity in the late 1600's when Comma-opposition-fervor was arising.


Then answer my question above about the two works that meet this same criteria, ONE of which is actually mentioned in the pages of the NT - both in Greek AND English. And in the KJV.....





And that accusation is still parroted by the lemming modern textcrits despite the discovery of Codex Fuldensis and against common sense and sound reasoning and scholarship. Remember though, that these liberal textcrits like the late Bruce Metzger have absolutely no compunction about similarly accusing 2 Peter of being a defacto forgery, or the Pastorals. Caveat emptor.


The conservative Bauckham also denies Petrine authorship.

Avery also is not disclosing that Hugh Houghton, perhaps the world's leading authority nowadays on Latin, states:

"It is now held - on grounds of translation technique, vocabulary, biblical citations by Jerome and his contemporaries, and the Greek Vorlage - that Jerome was only responsible for revising the Gospels and not the rest of the NT."

Jerome would have had no reason to write this Prologue because he didn't write the rest of it.

Note that this is simply a case of a person who reads the original stuff and someone who cannot. No parroting is involved.

Overste
Mar 11th 2017, 01:55 PM
Overall, focusing on 'extant, Greek' MS can divert from the most salient issues.


No kidding, so you're saying we should NOT expect Greek MSS to reflect originality. Okay. But you cannot just apply this frayed concept to ONE passage, either.




And no, much of the above information will not generally be discussed very sensibly, if at all, in the textcrit summaries that are seminary-popular.


An aberrant statement in light of the seminary graduate who has dismantled your claims.




One of the most obvious internal points (mentioned some by McGyver and maybe Excubitor on another thread) for those with common sense is that dropping of verses and phrases and words is rather commonplace in copying, accidentally and sometimes deliberately.


Those with common sense will also ask you why there is literally not one other passage in the NT where this happened in the way you suggest happened in this one instance.



While adding words is very dicey, very easy to be noticed, the new words will glare out at the reader and other churches and scribes.


This is historically naive in light of the fact most folks in those days didn't have at-home copies of their own Bibles and Church A in Syria couldn't exactly compare their text very easily with Church B in Jerusalem.




And thus be rejected, with the scribe who added in livelihood danger for deliberate falsification of the word of God.


It didn't stop Cyprian or Augustine from doing those very things. In fact, the patristic writings are a hodge-podge of weirdness.




While the dropping of words is far less incendiary, there are lots of sensible reasons for omission to occur. (Notice e.g. the similarity of words in the ending of verses 7 and 8, a common skipping cause ..'homoeoteleuton'.) And even if dropped deliberately (both can occur in the history of a verse), which is very possible in doctrinally-charged verses, missing words are far less likely to be noticed because ... 'no one told me about them .. they weren't there'.


I also addressed this frivolous objection as it applies to the Comma Johanneum:

Pro-Comma advocates also suggest that the reading may have disappeared through homoioteleuton, an error of sight that occurs when a scribe’s eye jumps from one word to a later word with a similar ending, removing the text in between. This is a common error in the NT tradition, and a number of pro-Comma advocates argue for it.

Though not the first, Du Pin argued: "The others on the contrary allege, that those two verses beginning by the same words, it was easy for the copiers to omit one by negligence, nothing being more usual than when the same word is in two periods that follow one another, for the copier to pass from the word of the first period to that which follows in the second."

Matthew Henry’s commentary also suggests homoioteleuton:
"It was far more easy for a transcriber, by turning away his eye, or by the obscurity of the copy, it being obliterated or defaced on the top or bottom of a page, or worn away in such materials as the ancients had to write upon, to lose and omit the passage, than for an interpolator to devise and insert it; he must be very bold and impudent, that could hope to escape detection and shame, and profane too, that durst venture to make an addition to a supposed sacred book."

Kohlmann argues:
There are several ways of accounting for that omission and among others, it may be said, 1st, that this omission happened by the neglect of some ignorant copyists, who, after having written the first words of the 7th verse “there are three, that give testimony,” by a mistake of the eyes, skipped over the remaining part part of the text, and passed on to the immediately following text, where the same words recur; for such mistakes often take place in transcribing, especially when the two verses and the two periods begin and end with the same words."


A Critique of Removal by Homoioteleuton
The homoioteleuton proposal is slightly more plausible than the heretical tampering theory but only because there are degrees of plausibility. In fact, if removal by homoioteleuton is correct then one must wonder why there is no discussion of some manuscripts containing the reading juxtaposed with other manuscripts lacking the reading. Apparently, every single manuscript that landed in the hands of an early church father was missing the reading. There are other problems with the proposal but first let’s consider whether homoioteleuton is a possible explanation for the absence of the Comma. (Example is given over the next few pages)


There is no question that homoioteleuton is a major cause of textual variation. The problem as it relates to the Comma is that homoioteleuton is generally suspected when a reading occurs in some manuscripts, usually early ones, and then disappears in others, usually later ones. The evidential scenario is the exact opposite as that found with the Comma. To believe that homoioteleuton is the cause of this variant, one must believe that it vanished so early in transmission as to leave no trace whatsoever but then miraculously appeared first in medieval Latin manuscripts and then in Greek manuscripts after the tenth century.

One must theorize that every single scribe copying an early manuscript looked away from the manuscript at the exact same time, jumped over the Comma, and did not notice it. Not one scribe’s eye jumped to the words in between nor did any scribe notice the error immediately, place it in the margin (or later in the text), and leave a comment that the passage belonged in the text. In the case of the Comma Johanneum, there is no proof that such a reading existed at the early stage.

The homoioteleuton proposal is problematic in another sense: if the loss of a doctrinally rich reading such as the Comma occurred so early in the transmission of the text as to leave no trace, it means that nobody can ever be certain of any reading where unintentional errors can account for the change. If it occurred once then consistent proponents must wonder how many other readings were likewise altered. This is not a problem for those who do not enter the discussion with a theological a priori commitment to a doctrine of preservation, but virtually all advocates of the Comma do hold such commitments.

As noted earlier, Porson presented the problems one has if the Comma is to be viewed as genuine:
"I shall observe, that if we suppose the first Christians to have treated the Scriptures in this manner, we at once destroy the certainty and authority of our present canon. But whoever supposes, as I think every defender of the text ought to suppose, that it was extant and publicly known from the beginning, cannot, with the smallest appearance of reason, pretend that it ought not be formally and directly cited in almost every treatise on the Trinity."

The twin proposals that allegedly removed the Comma Johanneum from the manuscripts also suffer from another problem: virtual impossibility. Pro-Comma advocates focus upon possibility. They argue that is that it is possible that heretics may have removed the passage, and it is possible for a reading to fall out from homoioteleuton. Such proposals ignore that the role of the historian is to opt for the most probable option, not merely one that is possible. With the sole exception of Nolan’s point regarding Eusebius producing Bibles, none of those alleging heretical tampering ever provides evidence that it occurred. All of them speculate and suggest that it may have happened or, like Dabney, they deem it more likely that opponents would remove it than that the orthodox would corrupt scripture. There is no evidence that either scenario ever happened.

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

Incidentally, I will point out that bringing up Porson's alleged alcoholism is little more than argumentum ad hominem, though such would hardly be the first.

Overste
Mar 11th 2017, 01:59 PM
Which brings us, in closing, to the motto of the modern versions.

"Use the modern versions, you won't know what you are missing !"


Did anyone else notice Avery thought using quotes for things nobody actually said was acceptable in 2008 but is reason for him blasting me inappropriately the last few days?

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

The entire argument is settled. It is long over. John did NOT write the Comma Johanneum, plain and simple. The reasons Avery gave were all specious and all refuted, save for in his own mind. With the exception of the NKJV and perhaps a couple of TR-based Bibles (KJ21) that I've never seen, the Comma Johanneum simply does not appear in translations being made nowadays. It never should have been there in the first place.

TrustGzus
Mar 11th 2017, 02:07 PM
Some of the most recent translations don't even footnote 5:7 anymore. Probably due to the evidence being that weak. I personally think they should. When a Bible has nothing after a verse number a little explanation is a good thing imo.

Overste
Mar 11th 2017, 02:41 PM
If we have a discussion thread on it on CARM, he should link to the discussion. You will see, without our spending hours, that saying the reference is a farce is itself an unscholarly joke. Really it is scholastically sick to speak in that way, even if you do not believe that Cyprian had the verse in his Bible.



Since you asked for CARM links and made the condescending remark, I will again grant your request. The readers of this post should keep in mind Avery claims to be a member of a research team (SART). Thus, one would hope research would be part of his expertise. One hopes this in vain.


1) Here is Avery claiming Codex Colbertinus is an Old Latin witness for the Comma Johanneum (http://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/theology/general-christian-topics/king-james-only/60053-old-latin-ms-support-of-the-heavenly-witnesses)

Avery just claimed OL support for a reading from a manuscript that in the Catholic Epistles is NOT OL but rather Vulgate. Metzger (1977) in "Early Versions" tells us this manuscript "contains the four Gospels and Acts in Old Latin with the rest of the New Testament in the Vulgate" (296)
In other words, his research led him in the wrong direction as recently as November 2015.


2) Here is Avery misquoting a French resource he did not read. (http://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/theology/general-christian-topics/early-church-fathers/48743-vulgate-prologue-to-the-canonical-epistles?p=2264375#post2264375)

Here is the misquote:
Quelques beaux esprits ont dit en plaisantant que Jésus-Christ et les apôtres avaient fait des miracles pour prouver que trois ne font qu'un. Ils ont seulement enseigné que les trois personnes divines en doute que ce prologue fut de saint Jérôme; niais nous n'ignorons pas non plus que leurs raisons sont si frivoles, qu'elles ne méritent pas d'être réfutées. - Genoud, Sainte Bible en latin et en français Vol 5, p. 682


But all even a minimally competent researcher must do is look at the free online book from which he quoted (https://books.google.com/books?id=TtSNtdseKyUC&pg=PA680&lpg=PA680&dq=#v=onepage&q&f=false).

Avery does not speak French. Neither do I. However, the actual quote Avery missed is this:

Quelques beaux esprits ont dit en plaisantant que Jésus-Christ et les apôtres avaient fait des miracles pour prouver que trois ne font qu'un. Ils ont seulement enseigné que les trois personnes divines avaient la meme nature et n'etaient qu'un seul Dieu, et ils l'ont enseigne non comme on prouve une verite mathematique mais comme un mystere impenetrable.


Why did he miss it? Because his research was so meticulous that he did not realize that the book he quoted was MISSING A PAGE.
This, of course, takes several years and a PhD - checking page numbers. It's the research equivalent of checking thousands of tiny little Christmas lights while not making sure the extension cord is plugged in.

(Note: although I do not speak French, my undergrad studies included singing in French so I did immediately recognize that the quote did not look quite correct. All I then had to do was basic research).

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

Mr Avery,

You requested CARM links and you got them. Note that BOTH links provided are relevant to your arguments here regarding the Vulgate Prologue and note that BOTH demonstrate that you do not have even a minimal grasp upon BASIC FACTS. If I simply said, "You're (something negative)," we could dismiss this as an ad hominem attack. Unfortunately, I have now demonstrated REPEATEDLY that you are lacking even minimal competence in getting basic facts correct. You have not made one or two mistakes in a huge volume of Internet writings, almost every single post you've ever made contains these kinds of basic factual errors.


And it isn't just THIS subject, either.


You also claimed: (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/246214-The-Codex-Sinaiticus?p=3088227#post3088227)
By his own account, Simonides did not collate manuscripts.


Which would be great except he did: (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/246214-The-Codex-Sinaiticus?p=3371924#post3371924)
Dionysus...declined...when he objected...we straightway inspected the oldest manuscripts preserved in Mt Athos...And the learned Benedict taking in his hands a copy of the Moscow edition of the OT and NT (published at the expense of the illustrious brothers Zosimas, and by them presented to the Greeks), collated it, with my assistance, with three only of the ancient copies, which he had long before annotated and corrected for another purpose and cleared their text by this collation from remarkable clerical errors, and again collated them with the edition of the Codex Alexandrinus, printed with uncial letters, and still further with another very old Syriac Codex and gave me...Genesis to copy."

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


I want to say to this board moderation that I sincerely appreciate your liberality and tolerance here. Avery's common tactic through the years has been to whine that pointing out he cannot read Greek equals "personal attack" in order to get entire responses as I have provided removed. I therefore appreciate your willingness to leave the evidence here lest he deny it ever existed (another tactic).


The simple fact of the matter is that Mr Avery continues to prove in almost every post WHY education is important. Note that I haven't even documented (in this post) his misquotation of Maas (in another thread) nor has he denied his "howler" (the words of Euthymius the poster) about Tischendorf's typewritten letter in 1844. These types of blunders - not knowing a page is missing from a book you're citing, not knowing typewriters were barely in their embryonic stage, not knowing the basic classification of a manuscript that could have been checked at Wikipedia - do not instill a great deal of confidence in his research about ANY subject at this point.



You asked for links, Mr Avery - I gave them to you. You're welcome.

Overste
Mar 11th 2017, 02:59 PM
One final documentation since this argument no doubt is being prepared in response as I write.

Let me remind the reader something Avery finally admitted to yesterday. Stew Ward's Hip asked (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/246214-The-Codex-Sinaiticus?p=3372960#post3372960):

Mr. Avery, can you read koine greek in any of its forms from any particular century?

Answer?

Nope. And I never claimed that I could (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/246214-The-Codex-Sinaiticus?p=3372967#post3372967)

But this admission has not stopped him from writing on the subject of.......Greek grammar, most notably an alleged problem in 1 John 5:7 (http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?t=299).

Consider this utterly arrogant proclamation from the individual who finally admitted to not even knowing Greek:

In the times after Eugenius wrote, into the 1800s, the Greek fluency in England and the Continent was far stronger than the piddle Greek of today's seminaries.. (Though it had fallen some from the 1600s.) Thus odd-ball ideas like that of Hofstetter were smiled at and easily rejected.

Today, with the Critical Text deforming grammar, and a faux spirit of "let's learn Greek to correct the Bible with our new translations" and very little fluency, weak ideas easily float again, and the grammar discussions on salient Bible verses like John 1:18 and the heavenly witnesses and 1 Timothy 3:16 become worse than the blind leading the blind.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Twice he disparages Barry Hofstter with snide comments in that post and then actually has the gall to suggest Hofstetter is under some sort of obligation to do Avery's work for him:

1) Readers should understand that it is highly unlikely that Barry Hofstetter, with his dangerous little knowledge, will acknowledge receiving and learning anything at all from these studies and writings.

2) And if Hofstetter wanted to be helpful, and really learn at the same time, be edified by studies on the pure word of God, he would read and share on the heavenly witnesses from some of the Latin writers, and contribute to our body of knowledge.


According to Avery, there is some sort of grammatical anomaly that vindicates his precious KJV here. Now....how he could possibly know this when he has already admitted he doesn't read Greek?

And yet perhaps topping the charts for "can you believe this" on this issue, he actually tried to get Hofstetter to help him (https://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=3230)make this inane argument about grammar. Hofstetter answered the query with this finality: "One doesn't have to read Greek too terribly long before one realizes that there are a whole lot of exceptions to the formal rules of gender agreement. Here, I think a constructio ad sensum is the best explanation. The three are thought of as witnesses in an active sense, and so are personified with a masculine reference. It's not absolutely necessary, but it is a matter of emphasis."


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


The simple truth is there IS no grammatical anomaly here or more precisely there isn't one that vindicates 1 John 5:7.


I will stop the posting at this moment regarding this. My purpose is NOT to turn this board into a spat. However, I have no reservations about pointing out that the polemicist lacks credibility on this issue (among many).


The Comma Johanneum, very simply, is a Latin interpolation that dates from around the time of Priscillian. Even if I'm wrong on Cyprian, it really doesn't help the KJVOs as much as they wish.

But barring new evidence being found (to which we must always submit), I'm not wrong on this one.

Overste
Mar 11th 2017, 04:39 PM
I just saw this hence the rebuttal.




This is simply an insult to the forum.


My realizing that you will not change your position ("convert") regardless of what I say is an insult to the forum?????




We are talking about the word of God!
And whether this full section with the beautiful parallelism of both heavenly and earthly witnesses:

1 John 5:7-8
For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness in earth,
the spirit, and the water, and the blood:
and these three agree in one.

is the pure word of God.


Here's a hint: it isn't.



As in the traditional Reformation Bible.


There is no such thing. You concede this when you refuse to my answer question about which one it is.



Or whether the text is mangled to be only the earthly witnesses.


Only if "mangled" means "the way the author wrote it."



Even if you have a preference to thinking that the bold is not scripture:

We are NOT talking about "making converts."


So then when you share your inane ideas about Sinaiticus or your KJVO views - you're actually NOT trying to persuade (a synonym of convert) people to YOUR position?

Is it fair to surmise that you simply find preaching at people via the Net to be a safer means of your communication?



Please stop insulting the forum.


I've never insulted the forum. Have you forgotten?



In addition, under the:

Bill Brown theory of creating and defending deliberate misquotion


Which - like Kallinikos, the Santa Claus of Simonides ('he's EVERYwhere!') - doesn't exist....



I could say that Bill Brown is even worse, claiming that I am "fabricating disciples" since those two words are listed as synonyms to "making" and "converts".


I think you need to go back and READ what I said rather than your (oh, the irony) carefully edited quotation (or quotion, if you prefer) and actually read it with the intent to understand it.

When I am finished, the readers of this thread will be more illumined on the issue. While I know full well that no convert will be made of Mr Avery himself, my replies will no doubt succeed in preventing converts to his views.

I know that NO CONVERT will be made of Mr Avery - everyone reading this INCLUDING you know what this means and it is further elucidated contextually by "converts to his views."

I know that no matter what you say here, you will not succeed in flipping ANYONE informed on the subject from my position to yours. YOU KNOW that's what I was saying (ironic yet again given your false allegation of me misquoting).

I said nothing about fabricating disciples and if this is how desperate you've gotten then may I suggest you simply stop posting on these subjects?



Under the Bill Brown theory, placed on this forum the last few days, you can change words around if you can find them in a thesaurus listed as a synonym.


I never said any such thing. However, let me help you reword this and communicate the SAME MEANING as my original sentence just as I pointed out you were communicating the same meaning about your first (and now denied ever happened) "studies" of Sinaiticus.

What I said:
When I am finished, the readers of this thread will be more illumined on the issue. While I know full well that no convert will be made of Mr Avery himself, my replies will no doubt succeed in preventing converts to his views.

Synonyms Communicating Same Meaning:
When I complete my posts, the Bible Forum posters who read it will know so much more than they do now. While I know full well that Mr Avery will not change his own mind in favor of my positin, what I write will unquestionably work at preventing the readers from adopting his views.

That this is what I meant is so obvious that it is amazing you chose this route.




This theory of course, shows a great misunderstanding of how language works and what is the definition of a synonym (which is NOT "identical word-meaning without differences of nuance and usage")


Do you not note the irony of you complaining about 'great misunderstanding' when that is what you're doing here in an effort to adopt a persecution complex?




Bill Brown has not even had the integrity to say that he will not continue to deliberately misquote again and again in the future,


I haven't misquoted you this time or for that matter - ever. I have literally never misquoted anyone with anything resembling intent. It's entirely possible that I might have missed a word or as Robert Frazier once noted in the Ehrman thesis, one word and one comma - but I believe the word as an article and and didn't change the meaning nor did I intend for it to change the meaning, it was just fatigued eyes.

I won't misquote you. I have NOT misquoted you and reject your assertion as false. Nevertheless...





by changing my words to his cherry-picked synonym, and then putting the new words, that I never wrote, in quotes!


So misquoting people bothers you on the basis of a synonym that ACCURATELY portrays what you said, huh?

I hope then that you're equally offended by misquotations that are used to misrepresent what the author said. For example, like your own misquotation of Kurt Aland: (http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=21695&sid=815b093b7abfc560ebb2ac8c75cce313#p21695)

AVERY MISQUOTE
We should not forget that apart from 0212 (found at Dura Europus) all the early witnesses listed above on p. 57 are from Egypt, where the hot, dry sands preserved the papyri through the centuries (similar climatic conditions are found in the Judaean desert where papyri have also been discovered). From other major centers of the early Christian church nothing has survived. This raises the question whether and to what extent we can generalize from the Egyptian situation. Egypt was distinguished from other provinces of the Church, so far as we can judge, by the early dominance of gnosticism; this was not broken until about A.D. 200. when Bishop Demetrius succeeded in reorganizing the diocese and establishing communications with the other churches. Not until then do we have documentary evidence of the church in Egypt ...

ALAND ACTUAL QUOTE
We should not forget that apart from 0212 (found at Dura Europus) all the early witnesses listed above on p. 57 are from Egypt, where the hot, dry sands preserved the papyri through the centuries (similar climatic conditions are found in the Judaean desert where papyri have also been discovered). From other major centers of the early Christian church nothing has survived. This raises the question whether and to what extent we can generalize from the Egyptian situation. Egypt was distinguished from other provinces of the Church, so far as we can judge, by the early dominance of gnosticism; this was not broken until about A.D. 200. when Bishop Demetrius succeeded in reorganizing the diocese and establishing communications with the other churches. Not until then do we have documentary evidence of the church in Egypt, although undoubtedly not only the gnostic but also the broader Church was represented there throughout the whole period. At almost the same time the Catechetical School of Alexandria was instituted as the first 'Christian university.'

Avery pulls this misquote to make the erroneous claim that one of the great textual critics of the 20th century, Kurt Aland, had warned folks that that papyri were somehow unreliable because of gnostic tampering. But that's not at all what he said and besides - Aland himself adopted readings that the KJVOs tell us were Gnostic, so this alleged 'warning' (that never happened) wasn't even applied anyway.

Aland's actual point - clear yet again in context - was that there is a legitimate question as to how much we can generalize about the Bible text because the other major centers of the Christian church have not had their manuscripts preserved in sand as happened in Egypt - and it is fair to question whether Egypt ALONE is a fair assessment of the enitrety of the text.


But obviously his words that Avery eliminated undercut the point Avery wanted to make. So he just cut them short and gambled nobody would actually check out his research.






Integrity first!


As in your Aland example?



Let's get straight what is done on this forum first,


Which was you attacking me incessantly
Which is you distorting my words and then accusing me of misquoting

Rest assured - every rational person can see what you're trying to do here.



before trying to mangle events way over the horizon from five years ago in distant lands.


Nothing has been mangled. You asked for links and you got them.



This deliberate misquoting is NOT a minor issue.


Then you should quit it. I've literally never done this....



It is a stake in the heart of respectful discourse, including scholastic discourse.


While ranting and raving and accusing me of fabricating meets your admittedly minimal standards of scholarship?


(I'm beginning to realize that just as Simonides did - every single time something you say is exposed as wrong, you become ever more petulant and angry and make even more ridiculous assertions than the initial ones).


You should realize something by now - because you have refused to do that hard work, to learn the languages, to do competent research, you are the mercy of your non-education in relevant subjects. There is nothing wrong with being ignorant!!! I cannot fly an airplane and my vision would prevent me from ever being able to do so. I am utterly ignorant of HOW to fly an airplane.

But I also am not posting over on Airline Pilot Central Forums quoting books from 1921 (in all their pre-space flight limitations) trying to tell actual pilots "facts" about how to fly an airplane, either.

Overste
Mar 11th 2017, 04:55 PM
In his work Adversus Praxean, Tertullian states: “So the close series of the Father in the Son and the Son in the Paraclete makes three who cohere, the one attached to the other: And these three are one substance, not one person, in the sense in which it was said, ‘I and the Father are one’ in respect of unity of substance, not of singularity of number.”

A number of pro-Comma works reference this quotation by Tertullian.

Because Charles Forster presents a detailed examination of the early witnesses, his argument here is cited as typical of those who claim that this is an allusion to the Comma: "I proceed to show that the charge of the disputed text having been forged from the corresponding Patristic phrase ἡ Τριὰς, stands equally disproved by the same sure test, the earliness of its occurrence. For we find it in Theophilus of Antioch, A. D. 158-59, in Clemens Alexandrinus, A. D. 190-200, and in Tertullian, A. D. 180-220, prior to the host of Fathers who use it in the third and fourth centuries."

Forster buttresses this argument by insisting upon a particular assumption about the early church fathers:
"Upon the subject of Scripture quotation, Tertullian and St. Athanasius may fairly be taken as representing the mind and ideas of the Fathers generally; for all alike act on the principle of sparing formal quotations. Now what is their common rule as regards Scripture quotations? Upon the very subject in question, the doctrine of the Trinity, both tell their readers that they do not task them with the Scripture proofs, leaving the Scriptures to speak for themselves: that they use the utmost brevity, noticing only one or two sufficing texts. "


This assumption is critical because it allows Forster to allege references to the Comma while ignoring the fact that such quotations are not distinct and therefore do not constitute evidence for the Comma. Forster also assumes that the church fathers only used Scripture to determine their verbiage. Referencing St. Basil, whose alleged citation of the Comma is not invoked today even by TR advocates, Forster states:
"That St. Matthew is here quoted, who will venture to question? but as certainly as the second Triad is taken from St. Matthew xxviii. 19, the first Triad of St. Basil is taken from 1 John v. 7. His substitution in the first clause of θεὸς for πατὴρ (probably to avoid the repetition) only strengthens the proof of reference to St. John's Epistle, because St. John himself makes this very change in a following verse, v. 9, where he twice speaks of the witness of the Father (ὁ πατὴρ) as the witness of God (ἡ ματρυρία τοῦ θεοῦ). I maintain, therefore, that this double enumeration of the Persons is a double quotation of 1 John v. 7, and St. Matthew xxviii. 19...To assume that, in a formal Confession of Faith, he could be guilty of changing our Lord’s word Υἱὸς into Λόγος without the authority of another Scripture, would be- to charge him with falsifying the Divine Formula of Baptism! I affirm, therefore, as a moral certainty, that the Λόγος of St. Basil’s first Triad of the Divine Persons is St. John’s Λόγος, v. 7; and that, by necessary consequence, this Triad of the Divine names is a tacit quotation of the three Heavenly Witnesses of that verse."

Forster’s work is replete with appeals to church fathers as proof of the genuineness of the Comma. Much of his argument depends on the assumption that any reference to the Trinity proves the father had the Comma before him. Forster appeals to phrases such as “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” and “these three are one” and considers them proof that a church father is quoting the Comma. In another instance he states, “If, therefore, any great Father is found using the term λόγος in treating of the Persons of the Trinity, the inference is inevitable that he takes this denomination of the second Person, where the three are spoken of together, from the seventh verse.” Note also that Forster has already anticipated the objection that such quotations are not verbatim, so he invokes an escape route by alleging that since Basil does not quote the text verbatim but substitutes θεός for πατήρ, this is actually a double proof that a church father is quoting from a different passage.

Forster’s argument is free of ambiguity: any reference to the persons of the Trinity or to Christ as λόγος is proof the writer is referencing the Comma. There are numerous problems with this method, but a major problem is that there are at least two alternatives to Forster’s assumption: 1) a writer referencing Jesus as λόγος might be looking at the prolegomena to John’s Gospel; or 2) he may not be looking at his text at all. Despite these plausible alternatives, Forster insists all such writers must have 1 John 5:7 in their minds.

Furthermore, Forster’s assumption that early church writers only made changes based upon the authority of another text of Scripture is at variance with every scrap of evidence available. I will present a more thorough critique in conjunction with the Cyprian quotation, but Richard Porson, writing nearly a century prior to Forster, addressed the claim that Tertullian quoted the Comma as briefly as can be summarized:
"If the three heavenly witnesses were in his copy of the N. T. why does he never appeal to them in the rest of this treatise, particularly in his twenty second chapter, where he insists, at length, on the expression Ego et Pater unum sumus; which he quotes five times in the whole book? His argument, on this subject, takes up half a page of your Appendix: yet he is content with a flight and transient allusion to a text, which is twice as important as the other, and by its peculiarity of expression, demanded a double share of his attention? Ought he not to have expected that the heretics would have endeavored to elude the force of this argument, and pervert it to their own doctrine, as they had perverted John X.30?"

Porson’s point is clear. Tertullian references John 10:30 five times in this tome, but never once does Tertullian refer to 1 John 5:7. Given the strength of 1 John 5:7 to advocate the Trinity, what plausible alternative can be given other than that Tertullian did not have the Comma? This argument is strengthened by the fact that Tertullian never provides a commentary on the Comma as would be expected if he had it. Based upon this solitary quotation of Tertullian, the only thing that can be concluded for sure is that he was commenting upon John 10:30, not 1 John 5:7. Thus, the reference from Tertullian provides no evidence he knew of the Comma.

shepherdsword
Mar 12th 2017, 10:57 AM
Let's look at other sources for the Comma and see what you think Overste:

1) Cyprian Bishop of Carthage (ANFv 5 418 and 423)
2) Vigilius of Thaspus quotes it in the 5th century

Both of these sources predate the The Codex Montfortianus (which has marginalia but the comma is in the text)
I have always held the opinion that it is easier for copyists to accidentally omit a phrase or word than deliberately force marginal notes into the text. I do read greek on a novice to intermediate level but I haven't been formally trained in textual critisim. It just seems to make sense that someone would make a mistake rather than deliberately alter a text.

Overste
Mar 12th 2017, 01:27 PM
Let's look at other sources for the Comma and see what you think Overste:

1) Cyprian Bishop of Carthage (ANFv 5 418 and 423)


I basically covered Cyprian above. The most PROBABLE explanation is that he didn't have it. Cyprian's writings provide several readings that simply aren't original. Cyprian repeatedly glosses texts (1 John 2:9, 2:16, 4:3) and - quite simply - there is no reason for him (if, in fact, he quotes 'textually' as is so often asserted) to change the 'word' (verbum) to 'Son' (filio). It is quite pretentious to think that Latin speakers in the third century made verbal switch outs as happen in English (with 'Father, Word, and Holy Spirit' changed to 'Father, Son, and Holy Ghost') that are due mostly to the enunciation of words.

I don't think there's sufficient evidence to say Cyprian quoted. But......let's say....solely for the sake of argument......that I'm wrong.

What exactly does that mean? Even if Cyprian DID quote it that would not establish originality save perhaps it might tell us where the corruption came from. There are plenty of early readings nobody dares suggest are original. And those advocating Cyprian as a witness for the CJ here have - universally - not done a detailed study of his Latin writings to be able to make this particular claim. Do they believe his other glosses in 1 John are ALSO original? Of course not. Why not? Because the claim of Cyprian as a witness is motivated solely by trying to argue originality of the one verse while ignoring his own scribal habits.







2) Vigilius of Thaspus quotes it in the 5th century


Probably. But this is hardly relevant since Priscillian DOES both quote it AND gloss it sometime prior to his demise in 385 AD. Nobody is denying the LATIN Fathers cited it on several occasions beginning from the time of Priscililan (himself a modalist). Indeed, it is the limited language of BOTH the Fathers AND the manuscripts that reinforce the conclusion of non-originality.



Both of these sources predate the The Codex Montfortianus (which has marginalia but the comma is in the text)


True but so then does the Acts of the IV Lateran Council of 1215.



I have always held the opinion that it is easier for copyists to accidentally omit a phrase or word than deliberately force marginal notes into the text.


This would be true if we were talking about Greek because there was more uniform control of the text somewhat earlier. The reason for the Vulgate recension (382) was because there was a splattering of Latin readings all over the place, many that had nothing to do with anything relevant. Furthermore, based upon what we DO have, it's VERY EASY to see how the reading could have crept into Greek. Person has Latin manuscript with it and Greek without it. OR....person has Latin-Greek diglot that disagrees and he isn't a textual critic. And keep in mind that based on the dates of the manuscript in the Greek TEXT (as opposed to marginal notes), it appears to primarily be a result of when Constantinople was sacked (they needed a better offensive line) and 'ad fontes' (to the sources) became the cry.





I do read greek on a novice to intermediate level but I haven't been formally trained in textual critisim. It just seems to make sense that someone would make a mistake rather than deliberately alter a text.

The problem in this case, however, is that not ONE person but....how many people.....somehow made the SAME mistake at the exact SAME time. If we were talking about a letter, a word, perhaps a couple of words that's one thing. But this is a 28-word cluster. It's not that what you're saying is completely impossible - it's just that there are far more probable explanations than that.

Royse did a study of six papyri years ago that sort of supports (to a degree) what you're saying. A fair question is whether six manuscripts can be universalized in understanding and - fwiw- Royse rejects the Comma Johanneum, meaning it is NOT a necessary conclusion for his theory.

Jude
Mar 12th 2017, 03:19 PM
II Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.


Jude

shepherdsword
Mar 15th 2017, 10:16 AM
I basically covered Cyprian above. The most PROBABLE explanation is that he didn't have it. Cyprian's writings provide several readings that simply aren't original. Cyprian repeatedly glosses texts (1 John 2:9, 2:16, 4:3) and - quite simply - there is no reason for him (if, in fact, he quotes 'textually' as is so often asserted) to change the 'word' (verbum) to 'Son' (filio). It is quite pretentious to think that Latin speakers in the third century made verbal switch outs as happen in English (with 'Father, Word, and Holy Spirit' changed to 'Father, Son, and Holy Ghost') that are due mostly to the enunciation of words.

I don't think there's sufficient evidence to say Cyprian quoted. But......let's say....solely for the sake of argument......that I'm wrong.

What exactly does that mean? Even if Cyprian DID quote it that would not establish originality save perhaps it might tell us where the corruption came from. There are plenty of early readings nobody dares suggest are original. And those advocating Cyprian as a witness for the CJ here have - universally - not done a detailed study of his Latin writings to be able to make this particular claim. Do they believe his other glosses in 1 John are ALSO original? Of course not. Why not? Because the claim of Cyprian as a witness is motivated solely by trying to argue originality of the one verse while ignoring his own scribal habits.







Probably. But this is hardly relevant since Priscillian DOES both quote it AND gloss it sometime prior to his demise in 385 AD. Nobody is denying the LATIN Fathers cited it on several occasions beginning from the time of Priscililan (himself a modalist). Indeed, it is the limited language of BOTH the Fathers AND the manuscripts that reinforce the conclusion of non-originality.



True but so then does the Acts of the IV Lateran Council of 1215.



This would be true if we were talking about Greek because there was more uniform control of the text somewhat earlier. The reason for the Vulgate recension (382) was because there was a splattering of Latin readings all over the place, many that had nothing to do with anything relevant. Furthermore, based upon what we DO have, it's VERY EASY to see how the reading could have crept into Greek. Person has Latin manuscript with it and Greek without it. OR....person has Latin-Greek diglot that disagrees and he isn't a textual critic. And keep in mind that based on the dates of the manuscript in the Greek TEXT (as opposed to marginal notes), it appears to primarily be a result of when Constantinople was sacked (they needed a better offensive line) and 'ad fontes' (to the sources) became the cry.





The problem in this case, however, is that not ONE person but....how many people.....somehow made the SAME mistake at the exact SAME time. If we were talking about a letter, a word, perhaps a couple of words that's one thing. But this is a 28-word cluster. It's not that what you're saying is completely impossible - it's just that there are far more probable explanations than that.

Royse did a study of six papyri years ago that sort of supports (to a degree) what you're saying. A fair question is whether six manuscripts can be universalized in understanding and - fwiw- Royse rejects the Comma Johanneum, meaning it is NOT a necessary conclusion for his theory.

You present some very good points that make it fool hardy to attempt to use this verse to defend the Trinity. A good JW scholar would destroy our argument if this verse was tried to be used to persuade them. Fortunately, the doctrine of the Trinity can be defended from a whole host of other verses from both the Old and New testaments. Thanks for pointing out the weakness of using this verse.

Overste
Mar 17th 2017, 04:53 PM
You present some very good points that make it fool hardy to attempt to use this verse to defend the Trinity. A good JW scholar would destroy our argument if this verse was tried to be used to persuade them. Fortunately, the doctrine of the Trinity can be defended from a whole host of other verses from both the Old and New testaments. Thanks for pointing out the weakness of using this verse.

Any time. It's senseless to use it. The route to go with JWs is to point out their group's false prophecies.

Steven Avery
Apr 15th 2017, 09:11 PM
You present some very good points that make it fool hardy to attempt to use this verse... Please share with me what you think are good points, and I would be happy to go over any one, or a few, carefully. If there is a reasoned argument, then let's look at it iron sharpeneth. I would like to avoid what happened in another discussion, where bluster and acrimony led a thread closure.

Please understand, the issue to me is not what verse you will use for this or that apologetics, it is far more simply... what is the pure word of God.

We do not choose our Bible to match our doctrines, we want the pure Bible to inform our doctrines.

Thanks!

Steven

TrustGzus
Apr 15th 2017, 09:39 PM
Please share with me what you think are good points, and I would be happy to go over any one, or a few, carefully. If there is a reasoned argument, then let's look at it iron sharpeneth. I would like to avoid what happened in another discussion, where bluster and acrimony led a thread closure.

Please understand, the issue to me is not what verse you will use for this or that apologetics, it is far more simply... what is the pure word of God.

We do not choose our Bible to match our doctrines, we want the pure Bible to inform our doctrines.

Thanks!

Steven

Steven, just follow the thread. The post below is what shepherdsword is referring to.

Any of us would agree with what you said above. All of us want what the apostles wrote. If it was about choosing verses to match our doctrines, we'd all accept 1 John 5:7 then because we are Trinitarians. So even in this brand new post you are making a charge that is unwarranted. We who disagree with your view adhere to Trinitarianism, the deity of Christ, substitutionary atonement, etc. It's not about choosing verses or translations based on doctrines. It's about a reasoned discussion asking what did the apostles write.

In regard to this doctrine, the Trinity is all over the NT, with or without the KJV/NKJV rendition of 1 John 5:7.


I basically covered Cyprian above. The most PROBABLE explanation is that he didn't have it. Cyprian's writings provide several readings that simply aren't original. Cyprian repeatedly glosses texts (1 John 2:9, 2:16, 4:3) and - quite simply - there is no reason for him (if, in fact, he quotes 'textually' as is so often asserted) to change the 'word' (verbum) to 'Son' (filio). It is quite pretentious to think that Latin speakers in the third century made verbal switch outs as happen in English (with 'Father, Word, and Holy Spirit' changed to 'Father, Son, and Holy Ghost') that are due mostly to the enunciation of words.

I don't think there's sufficient evidence to say Cyprian quoted. But......let's say....solely for the sake of argument......that I'm wrong.

What exactly does that mean? Even if Cyprian DID quote it that would not establish originality save perhaps it might tell us where the corruption came from. There are plenty of early readings nobody dares suggest are original. And those advocating Cyprian as a witness for the CJ here have - universally - not done a detailed study of his Latin writings to be able to make this particular claim. Do they believe his other glosses in 1 John are ALSO original? Of course not. Why not? Because the claim of Cyprian as a witness is motivated solely by trying to argue originality of the one verse while ignoring his own scribal habits.







Probably. But this is hardly relevant since Priscillian DOES both quote it AND gloss it sometime prior to his demise in 385 AD. Nobody is denying the LATIN Fathers cited it on several occasions beginning from the time of Priscililan (himself a modalist). Indeed, it is the limited language of BOTH the Fathers AND the manuscripts that reinforce the conclusion of non-originality.



True but so then does the Acts of the IV Lateran Council of 1215.



This would be true if we were talking about Greek because there was more uniform control of the text somewhat earlier. The reason for the Vulgate recension (382) was because there was a splattering of Latin readings all over the place, many that had nothing to do with anything relevant. Furthermore, based upon what we DO have, it's VERY EASY to see how the reading could have crept into Greek. Person has Latin manuscript with it and Greek without it. OR....person has Latin-Greek diglot that disagrees and he isn't a textual critic. And keep in mind that based on the dates of the manuscript in the Greek TEXT (as opposed to marginal notes), it appears to primarily be a result of when Constantinople was sacked (they needed a better offensive line) and 'ad fontes' (to the sources) became the cry.





The problem in this case, however, is that not ONE person but....how many people.....somehow made the SAME mistake at the exact SAME time. If we were talking about a letter, a word, perhaps a couple of words that's one thing. But this is a 28-word cluster. It's not that what you're saying is completely impossible - it's just that there are far more probable explanations than that.

Royse did a study of six papyri years ago that sort of supports (to a degree) what you're saying. A fair question is whether six manuscripts can be universalized in understanding and - fwiw- Royse rejects the Comma Johanneum, meaning it is NOT a necessary conclusion for his theory.

Daniel567
Apr 15th 2017, 11:43 PM
1 John 5:7 is part of the incorrupted word of God. It is not the books that contain this verse that are guilty of adding to the word of God but rather the books that have taken away these words that are guilty of taking away from the word of God.
Rufus, this is the correct understanding of the Johannine Comma. It was not added to Scripture but it was omitted from Scripture, and there is more than enough documentary evidence to prove this.

Does it make a difference if that verse is omitted? Absolutely. In fact it makes neither grammatical nor spiritual sense as seen in the modern versions. The bottom line is that ALL modern Bible versions beginning from 1881 are corrupted, unless they are simply another version of the KJV1611.

jesusinmylife
Apr 16th 2017, 04:49 PM
I found this info from the NET Bible translation notes:

Before τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα (to pneuma kai to {udwr kai to |aima), the Textus Receptus (TR) reads ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. 5:8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ (“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 TCGNT 647-49. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence. This longer reading is found only in nine late mss, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these mss (221 2318 [18th century] {2473 [dated 1634]} and [with minor variations] 61 88 429 629 636 918) 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. The oldest ms with the Comma in its text is from the 14th century (629), but the wording here departs from all the other mss in several places. The next oldest mss on behalf of the Comma, 88 (12th century) 429 (14th) 636 (15th), also have the reading only as a marginal note (v.l.). The remaining mss are from the 16th to 18th centuries. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek ms until the 14th century (629), and that ms deviates from all others in its wording; the wording that matches what is found in the TR was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the Comma 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 (1522) 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 ca. 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 TR 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 goes back to the original text yet does not appear until the 14th century in any Greek mss (and that form is significantly different from what is printed in the TR; the wording of the TR is not found in any Greek mss until the 16th century)? 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.

BadDog
Apr 17th 2017, 05:41 PM
Very noce post above! Good info..

The KJV New Testament was originally based on 7, then later upon 9 Greek MSS (manuscripts). It is a version of what is referred to as being in the majority text (MT) or Byzantine text family of MSS, referred to as textus receptus, or "the received text." If they had been able to use all of the MT MSS available today, there would be thousands of MT MSS, and it would have been a true majority text translation. Unfortunately the KJV, and the later NKJV, only had a handful of MSS to do their work, and 1 John was based upon one of the four recent Greek MT MSS which were in serious error for these verses.

Here is the Greek text in the MSS they used:

ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἔν εἰσι. 8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ] τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.

The bracketed text above (and below) is the added text. Here is how the KJV and NKJV translate those verses:

For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy 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.

These inserted words are absent from almost every Greek MSS. In fact, they only appear in the text of four relatively recent medieval MSS. Some believe that they originated as a marginal note added to certain Latin MSS during the middle ages, and was eventually mistakingly included into the text of most of the later Vulgate (Latin) MSS.

There is another popular theory about how the Greek text with the Johannine Comma got into Erasmus' compiled Greek text which was used by Tyndale's translation of his English NT from Greek into English. The story goes that Erasmus was adament that the Comma was not original, though some scholars wanted it included, since it was in many Latin Vulgate MSS. Finally he gave in and said that if they could find it in even one Greek MSS, then he would include it. Well, supposedly a Greek MSS was manufactured and presented to him. Reluctantly he included the Greek text, with a footnote that it was almost assuredly not original. I believe that the oldest Greek MSS with the Comma is dated in the 16th century (early 1500s). Erasmus published his Textus Receptus in 1516, I believe. His first two versions did not include the Comma, but the 3rd version, published in 1522, included it. Tyndale's NT was translated in, I believe, 1526.

Be that as it may, the Bracketed text is most definitely not original. Almost no textual critics see that text as original. No modern translations include it, and Art Farstadt, the editor of the 1984 NKJV, knew that it was not original. But he felt that he needed to stick with the original Greek MSS that the original KJV translators used. (I actually spoke with him in person at a conference we were both attending. :P so this is not just conjecture.)

Now, as has been pointed out, we do not need the Johannine Comma in order to defend the concept of the trinity from scripture. It is very clear that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are God, and they are One in essence.

BD

Overste
Apr 20th 2017, 12:57 AM
Note these twin comments of contradiction. FIRST, we have.....



Please understand, the issue to me is not what verse you will use for this or that apologetics, it is far more simply... what is the pure word of God.


Now, the notion of a 'pure word of God' or what Avery disingenuously calls "the preservation imperative" (simply using ten dollar words to advocate the five cent position of "the KJV alone is the preserved Word of God") is mentioned here.

Note also it's a.......doctrine.......now keep reading...




We do not choose our Bible to match our doctrines, we want the pure Bible to inform our doctrines.


Out of one side of the mouth: denying apologetics of doctrine is involved while advocating a doctrine...
Out the other side: minimizing doctrine right after he advocated......doctrine.....


No intelligent well thought out, consistent argument can be brought forth to support the CJ from any conservative advocate of biblical inspiration/preservation. I can see how someone like Kilpatrick or Elliott could argue in favor of it because their METHOD of TC would permit them the ability to consistently so argue. (Neither, however, argues in favor of this obvious addition). But all other TC positions save the fideistic obscurantism of KJV Onlyism (aka the unreasonable eclectic position) never arrive here.

It is an obvious Latin corruption - and nothing more.

Overste
Apr 20th 2017, 01:06 AM
There is another popular theory about how the Greek text with the Johannine Comma got into Erasmus' compiled Greek text which was used by Tyndale's translation of his English NT from Greek into English. The story goes that Erasmus was adament that the Comma was not original, though some scholars wanted it included, since it was in many Latin Vulgate MSS. Finally he gave in and said that if they could find it in even one Greek MSS, then he would include it. Well, supposedly a Greek MSS was manufactured and presented to him. Reluctantly he included the Greek text, with a footnote that it was almost assuredly not original. I believe that the oldest Greek MSS with the Comma is dated in the 16th century (early 1500s). Erasmus published his Textus Receptus in 1516, I believe. His first two versions did not include the Comma, but the 3rd version, published in 1522, included it. Tyndale's NT was translated in, I believe, 1526.


The story about Erasmus being challenged and added is....well, it's not NECESSARILY false, but let's just say it is unproven to put it mildly. It appears to have originated via Richard Simon in 1689.



Be that as it may, the Bracketed text is most definitely not original. Almost no textual critics see that text as original.


It is indisputably not original and the only textual critic I'm aware of who claimed it was E.F. Hills, and his argument was based on THEOLOGY and not textual criticism.



No modern translations include it, and Art Farstadt, the editor of the 1984 NKJV, knew that it was not original. But he felt that he needed to stick with the original Greek MSS that the original KJV translators used. (I actually spoke with him in person at a conference we were both attending. :P so this is not just conjecture.)


Yes, Farstad also made this clear on the John Ankerberg KJV Onlyism series in 1995. He also didn't exactly have a lot of regard for the Greek scholarship of the KJV translators, whose alleged knowledge of things has been puffed beyond recognition. He pointed out they were far more familiar with Latin, which may also explain this passage.



Now, as has been pointed out, we do not need the Johannine Comma in order to defend the concept of the trinity from scripture. It is very clear that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are God, and they are One in essence.

BD

True - and just so you're aware, Avery rejects the doctrine of the Trinity, which explains his attempts to divorce the TC from one theology while binding it to another.

BadDog
Apr 20th 2017, 02:36 PM
The story about Erasmus being challenged and added is....well, it's not NECESSARILY false, but let's just say it is unproven to put it mildly. It appears to have originated via Richard Simon in 1689.yes, I realize that. But Dr. Daniel Wallace, of Dallas Seminary, holds to it, and I have great respect for him as a textual critic.

But the JC does seem to have come from the Latin Vulgate, and the Latin Vulgate does have evidence that it was originally a margin text, which later got included into the actual text when copied. The Roman Catholic Church relied greatly on the LV at the time, so we can understand why they pushed Erasmus to include the JC, if indeed they did so.


It is indisputably not original and the only textual critic I'm aware of who claimed it was E.F. Hills, and his argument was based on THEOLOGY and not textual criticism.


Yes, Farstad also made this clear on the John Ankerberg KJV Onlyism series in 1995. He also didn't exactly have a lot of regard for the Greek scholarship of the KJV translators, whose alleged knowledge of things has been puffed beyond recognition. He pointed out they were far more familiar with Latin, which may also explain this passage.
Well, I'm no autority on the quality of the Greek scholarship of the KJV translators. But they also simply had a poor compiled Greek text to work from. Also, we simply did not have as many Greek manuscripts at that time, and since there were no Greek dictionaries at that time either, scholars compare how various words are used to help determine the definitions of many words.

For instance, the Greek word earlier translated as "only begotten" (μονογενῆς) means simply "unique, one and the same, only, in a uinque manner." But at the time, the KJV translators thought that γενῆς referred to birth, rather than becoming (GENAW). now translators translate John 3:16 as simply , "...that He gave his ONLY Son..." some translate it as "one and only."



True - and just so you're aware, Avery rejects the doctrine of the Trinity, which explains his attempts to divorce the TC from one theology while binding it to another.
Thx,

Appreciate your comments.

BD

Overste
Apr 20th 2017, 05:17 PM
yes, I realize that. But Dr. Daniel Wallace, of Dallas Seminary, holds to it,


I doubt this. (https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/justintaylor/2010/08/24/wallace-on-the-comma-johanneum-at-1-john-5-7/)

He may have at one time, but I doubt that is so presently.



and I have great respect for him as a textual critic.


Same here. He was my advisor during a time long ago I was at Dallas Seminary and was the first reader of my thesis which was...about the CJ.



But the JC does seem to have come from the Latin Vulgate, and the Latin Vulgate does have evidence that it was originally a margin text, which later got included into the actual text when copied. The Roman Catholic Church relied greatly on the LV at the time, so we can understand why they pushed Erasmus to include the JC, if indeed they did so.


That Erasmus felt pressure to include it is pretty much undisputed. The alleged Erasmian promise is the side issue.



Well, I'm no autority on the quality of the Greek scholarship of the KJV translators. But they also simply had a poor compiled Greek text to work from. Also, we simply did not have as many Greek manuscripts at that time, and since there were no Greek dictionaries at that time either, scholars compare how various words are used to help determine the definitions of many words.


No argument here. Furthermore - despite the assertions of the ignorant - we know MORE nowadays about how Greek functions and little nuances than was known even a century ago. A.T. Robertson's bulky grammar (https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/new_testament_greek/text/robertson-greekgrammar.pdf) points out that a truckload of assumptions about Greek prior to Winer (1822) were WRONG and the Deissman's work also altered the picture.

In other words, appealing to some bozo from the 18th century and ignoring everything written since then is something only a complete fool would do.

Nobody is saying the KJV translators were dumb, we are saying they had gaps in knowledge that were not their fault just as everyone now living will be seen the same way a century from now.



For instance, the Greek word earlier translated as "only begotten" (μονογενῆς) means simply "unique, one and the same, only, in a uinque manner." But at the time, the KJV translators thought that γενῆς referred to birth, rather than becoming (GENAW). now translators translate John 3:16 as simply , "...that He gave his ONLY Son..." some translate it as "one and only."


They thought a lot of things wrong just as four centuries from now we will be wrong on so much. But I get your point.

Thx.

BadDog
Apr 23rd 2017, 04:34 AM
I doubt this. (https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/justintaylor/2010/08/24/wallace-on-the-comma-johanneum-at-1-john-5-7/)

He may have at one time, but I doubt that is so presently. (About Daniel Wallace)
Thx for this info... I was just basing it on what I'd read in a couple articles of his.


Same here. He was my advisor during a time long ago I was at Dallas Seminary and was the first reader of my thesis which was...about the CJ.

That Erasmus felt pressure to include it is pretty much undisputed. The alleged Erasmian promise is the side issue.
And it does appear that he may have been concerned about not rocking the boat.


No argument here. Furthermore - despite the assertions of the ignorant - we know MORE nowadays about how Greek functions and little nuances than was known even a century ago. A.T. Robertson's bulky grammar (https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/new_testament_greek/text/robertson-greekgrammar.pdf) points out that a truckload of assumptions about Greek prior to Winer (1822) were WRONG and the Deissman's work also altered the picture.

In other words, appealing to some bozo from the 18th century and ignoring everything written since then is something only a complete fool would do.

Nobody is saying the KJV translators were dumb, we are saying they had gaps in knowledge that were not their fault just as everyone now living will be seen the same way a century from now.

They thought a lot of things wrong just as four centuries from now we will be wrong on so much. But I get your point.

Thx.
And Robertson's work is not at all recent. Well expressed above. I used to be a Byzantine text guy, until I discovered that the MT was only in the majority when you include MSS dating from about the 10th century and later. In the older MSS the Alexandrian text is much in the majority. I imagine if Erasmus had the wealth of Greek MSS that we have available now, that he would have been a critical text supporter himself.

I was friends with Zane Hodges, and he was a strong adherent of the MT. I still use his and Farstadt's Majority Greek text... I like the two sets of apparatus on the bottom of each page. They have great details regarding differences between the MT and the CT.

Thx for sharing.

BD

stoomart
Apr 29th 2017, 02:54 AM
Please share with me what you think are good points, and I would be happy to go over any one, or a few, carefully. If there is a reasoned argument, then let's look at it iron sharpeneth. I would like to avoid what happened in another discussion, where bluster and acrimony led a thread closure.

Please understand, the issue to me is not what verse you will use for this or that apologetics, it is far more simply... what is the pure word of God.

We do not choose our Bible to match our doctrines, we want the pure Bible to inform our doctrines.
Full disclosure: I lean more towards modalism than trinitarianism, but I'm still searching.

There is only one pure Word of God, and that is the Son of God, Jesus Christ. I don't believe there can be such a thing as a "pure bible" without having the original inspired manuscripts (or their authors) here today, but that is not an excuse for cults (Islam, JW, and Mormons) to start printing their own bibles as they see fit. I trust any substantial additions/omissions that arose over time have long been addressed. I believe God has divinely preserved everything necessary in the scripture to convince, rebuke, exhort, and teach.

Isaiah 55:11

So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.

Matthew 24:35

Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

2 Timothy 3:16-17

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Overste
May 4th 2017, 12:36 PM
Full disclosure: I lean more towards modalism than trinitarianism, but I'm still searching.

There is only one pure Word of God, and that is the Son of God, Jesus Christ. I don't believe there can be such a thing as a "pure bible" without having the original inspired manuscripts (or their authors) here today, but that is not an excuse for cults (Islam, JW, and Mormons) to start printing their own bibles as they see fit. I trust any substantial additions/omissions that arose over time have long been addressed. I believe God has divinely preserved everything necessary in the scripture to convince, rebuke, exhort, and teach.

Isaiah 55:11

So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.

Matthew 24:35

Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

2 Timothy 3:16-17

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.


The mere fact that we have to "choose a Bible" at all (per Avery/Spenser) is proof we ALL have to perform textual criticism, too.

TrustGzus
May 4th 2017, 12:50 PM
The mere fact that we have to "choose a Bible" at all (per Avery/Spenser) is proof we ALL have to perform textual criticism, too.

Do we? How many people get a Bible, never read another translation or ever read the footnotes to realize there are variants? I think this happens a lot. That being said, I think everyone should get some information on this. I think it has built up my confidence in the Bible, not hurt it.

Athanasius
May 6th 2017, 05:37 AM
Do we? How many people get a Bible, never read another translation or ever read the footnotes to realize there are variants? I think this happens a lot. That being said, I think everyone should get some information on this. I think it has built up my confidence in the Bible, not hurt it.

I'd say it's realised so rarely that there are variants, that it can (often) cause crises' of faith when it's brought up by critics who use it as an argument against Christianity.

TrustGzus
May 6th 2017, 04:50 PM
I'd say it's realised so rarely that there are variants, that it can (often) cause crises' of faith when it's brought up by critics who use it as an argument against Christianity.

I agree completely. I wish pastors talked about this stuff more frequently. If they did, Bart Erhman wouldn't have raised an eyebrow because what he writes about is well known to scholars and already answered.

Steven Avery
Jan 4th 2018, 02:05 PM
The KJV New Testament was originally based on 7, then later upon 9 Greek MSS (manuscripts). It is a version of what is referred to as being in the majority text (MT) or Byzantine text family of MSS, referred to as textus receptus, or "the received text." If they had been able to use all of the MT MSS available today, there would be thousands of MT MSS, and it would have been a true majority text translation. Unfortunately the KJV, and the later NKJV, only had a handful of MSS to do their work, and 1 John was based upon one of the four recent Greek MT MSS which were in serious error for these verses.
While there were some manuscripts available in England, the main sources of the AV were the Textus Receptus preinted editions (especially, Erasmus, Complutensian Polyglot, Stephanus, Beza.)

This was never meant to be a "Majority" Greek text, that concept is an anachronism if attempted to be brought back to the superb textual analysis of the 1500s. The Received Text editions worked to harmonize the preservation in both the Greek and Latin textlines, to put forth one pure Bible edition.

Steven Avery

Soldier_of_Faith
Jan 4th 2018, 03:28 PM
I am not real familiar with the Theological studies on modalism and trinitarianism. I believe I lean towards trinitarianism, if I wanted to take a side... But I really Don't...

And then I see people picking apart the Word of God... (Does this part of this verse belong in the bible?) Why should we ask such things?

Do you not know that JESUS, the Son of God IS the Word of God? And if Jesus Lived and Walked while on this earth, then every action he did was an act of the Word Of God, and it was recorded by earth's witnesses; the Spirit, the water, and the blood.

The Spirit:

Matthew 12:18 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.

Mark 1:9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. 10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: 11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 12 And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness.

John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

The Water:



Luke 1:30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. 31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Luke 2:6 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. 7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

[Baptism of Water & Spirit]

Matthew 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

[Water and Blood - witness of His Death]

John 19:32 Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. 33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: 34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. 35 And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.

[B]The Blood:

Matthew 27:26 Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified. 27 Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers. 28 And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe. 29 And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews! 30 And they spit upon him, and took the reed, and smote him on the head. 31 And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify him.

John 19:32 Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. 33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: 34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. 35 And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.


So then I see this:

Knowing that Jesus is the WORD OF GOD, as per John Chapter 1 (not in question in this OP);

I SEE THE FATHER IN THE BAPTISM OF JESUS: The Father spoke from heaven while Jesus was on Earth...

I SEE THE WORD IN JESUS AT THE BIRTH, AT THE BAPTISM, AND AT THE DEATH: Jesus is the Word of God that became flesh and dwelt among us...

I SEE THE HOLY GHOST (SPIRIT) IN THE BIRTH, BAPTISM OF JESUS, AND WHEN HE BREATHED HIM UPON THE APOSTLES: The Spirit descended as a Dove, and the Spirit was given through the Breath of the Word as a Witness.


So then I ask you all, why make a big deal if someone "accidentally" put something into the Word of God that actually is true? Where is your Faith that what the Lord God allowed this book to become, IS what He meant it to be for each person individually?

Ultimately, it is not HOW the bible is written, by WHY it is written:

2 Tim 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

So then, we should seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit (WHICH IS THE ONE COMMON ELEMENT IN BOTH SETS OF THREES in the text of the OP) to direct us to ALL TRUTH in what we read in any Version of the Bible. He is the one that wrote it anyways, not Man...

TrustGzus
Jan 4th 2018, 05:32 PM
Soldier,

Yes, Jesus is the Word per John 1:1-18 and a couple other passages. However, we must be careful how we state some things.

Jesus is the Word.
The Bible is the Word.
But Jesus is not the Bible and the Bible is not Jesus.

Questions on what the text says are understandable. When manuscripts are discovered and they don’t say the exact same thing, then which is correct? Or are neither?

But the Trinitarian issue is of extreme importance.

Trinitarianism is Christianity. Modalism is not Christianity. The Bible is extremely clear on this issue.

The Bible teaches the following:

1. There is only one God.
2. The Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God.
3. The Father is not the Son; the Son is not the Spirit; the Spirit is not the Father.

That is Trinitarianism.

That is way more important than whether we read a KJV or an NIV.

David Taylor
Jan 4th 2018, 11:25 PM
Another clear and simple way to state it.

The old testament name for God, YHWH, is found used throughout the OT; saying that there is only one YHWH; and there is no other God but YHWH.
Isaiah specifically, is repleat with verses teaching this fact.

YHWH alone is the uncreated Creator; perfect, sinless; immutable; omnipotent; omniprescent; omniscient; eternal; almighty; divine godhead deity.

When the NT writers came along; they taught us more about YHWH; and what they taught us is that while there still is only one YHWH; and there is no other God but YHWH; also and very importantly:

The Father is YHWH.
The Son (Jesus) is YHWH.
The Holy Spirit is YHWH.

This foundational truth given us by the NT writers; and they all share this believe in various places; is why Trinitarians alone is accepted and believed and taught mainstream historic Christianity.

Whether the Johannine Comma is of origin or later addition; is irrelevant; and cannot sway the hundreds of verses in the NT that teach us who YHWH is.

Naysayers mince words over their own confusion of the hypostatic union of Jesus as 100% human and 100% YHWH; having two natures; taking upon Himself a human nature when He chose to incarnate Himself in flesh in a manger. But the fact remains, Jesus is 100% YHWH; yet Jesus is not the Father.

3 "whos" in subject-object distinction amongst themselves; but 1 "what" in divine substance.

Soldier_of_Faith
Jan 7th 2018, 04:40 PM
Soldier,

Yes, Jesus is the Word per John 1:1-18 and a couple other passages. However, we must be careful how we state some things.

Jesus is the Word.
The Bible is the Word.
But Jesus is not the Bible and the Bible is not Jesus.

Questions on what the text says are understandable. When manuscripts are discovered and they don’t say the exact same thing, then which is correct? Or are neither?

But the Trinitarian issue is of extreme importance.

Trinitarianism is Christianity. Modalism is not Christianity. The Bible is extremely clear on this issue.

The Bible teaches the following:

1. There is only one God.
2. The Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God.
3. The Father is not the Son; the Son is not the Spirit; the Spirit is not the Father.

That is Trinitarianism.

That is way more important than whether we read a KJV or an NIV.

Agreed, and I do not mean to offend. My point was that I see people getting all fired up over "translation" or such, when if we just let the Holy Spirit give us the answer, we will have the truth. Honestly, we can't just wake up read the Word and "Get it" all the time. We must take time to prepare our hearts, repent, get a filling of the Holy Spirit, THEN Read the Word and ask questions. At that point we should be able to HEAR the Word of God (as he hear the Holy Spirit explain it to us) from whatever translation we read. I agree there are some translations that are in very poor taste, and I stay away from them. But personally, as a person who always attempts to "rightly divide the word of truth", I use Concordances, and many translations if needed when I am studying. But if I REALLY REALLY need an answer because I am stumped, I get down on my knees and draw close to Him and ask for the Filling of the Holy Spirit, so that I can receive the translation directly from the Lord.

So my point was that the Trinity is already evident throughout scripture... so why do we just question one verse that MIGHT be incorrectly or possibly (or by divine providence, or already there) added from a margin? The OP was about the Johannine Comma, so I was showing that it is correct, whether it was original or not.

TrustGzus
Jan 7th 2018, 09:00 PM
Agreed, and I do not mean to offend.
I’m not offended and I don’t think that you said anything offensive.

I’m sure what you took away or assumed from my post. You made a statement displaying a leaning toward the Trinity over a moralistic view and some writing that wasn’t clear (at least to me) that the phrase “Word Of God” is used in different senses. And those issues are more important than whether or not 1 John 5:7 in the KJV is original or not.

My point was that I see people getting all fired up over "translation" or such, when if we just let the Holy Spirit give us the answer, we will have the truth. Honestly, we can't just wake up read the Word and "Get it" all the time. We must take time to prepare our hearts, repent, get a filling of the Holy Spirit, THEN Read the Word and ask questions. At that point we should be able to HEAR the Word of God (as he hear the Holy Spirit explain it to us) from whatever translation we read. I agree there are some translations that are in very poor taste, and I stay away from them. But personally, as a person who always attempts to "rightly divide the word of truth", I use Concordances, and many translations if needed when I am studying. But if I REALLY REALLY need an answer because I am stumped, I get down on my knees and draw close to Him and ask for the Filling of the Holy Spirit, so that I can receive the translation directly from the Lord.
Where do you get this methodology of hermeneutic from?


So my point was that the Trinity is already evident throughout scripture... so why do we just question one verse that MIGHT be incorrectly or possibly (or by divine providence, or already there) added from a margin? The OP was about the Johannine Comma, so I was showing that it is correct, whether it was original or not.
The question with any variant should be “What did John (or other authors of other biblical books) write? That’s what I want in my Bible. I would hope it’s what we all want in our Bibles.

Soldier_of_Faith
Jan 8th 2018, 03:11 PM
I’m not offended and I don’t think that you said anything offensive.

I’m sure what you took away or assumed from my post. You made a statement displaying a leaning toward the Trinity over a moralistic view and some writing that wasn’t clear (at least to me) that the phrase “Word Of God” is used in different senses. And those issues are more important than whether or not 1 John 5:7 in the KJV is original or not.

Where do you get this methodology of hermeneutic from?

Experience. And I suppose an upbringing in a Spirit filled Pentecostal environment where I learned that I do not need to go to a possible "wolf in sheep's clothing" Professor at some college to learn what a verse means, when I can just get down on my knees and ask the Lord for an explanation, and He will guide me to all truth. And yes, sometimes He will use outside sources like professors and such, but I prefer letting the Lord guide me there, or telling me directly through His Spirit. I learned it from the Word too:

1 John 2:26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. 27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.



The question with any variant should be “What did John (or other authors of other biblical books) write? That’s what I want in my Bible. I would hope it’s what we all want in our Bibles.

I can see that you do not understand the power of the Holy Spirit the same way I do... I don't care what John thought. I care about what the LORD was telling me when John wrote it while filled with the Holy Spirit.

Athanasius
Jan 8th 2018, 03:30 PM
I can see that you do not understand the power of the Holy Spirit the same way I do... I don't care what John thought. I care about what the LORD was telling me when John wrote it while filled with the Holy Spirit.

You don't care what John thought, while caring about what John thought?

Soldier_of_Faith
Jan 8th 2018, 03:37 PM
You don't care what John thought, while caring about what John thought?

LOL - I care more about what the Lord is telling me from the Lips of John. John has some great stuff to say, Im sure, but I am showing that the Lord speaks to us from their writings, and that they did not want to give us their interpretations, but rather the WORD OF GOD.

Athanasius
Jan 8th 2018, 04:21 PM
LOL - I care more about what the Lord is telling me from the Lips of John. John has some great stuff to say, Im sure, but I am showing that the Lord speaks to us from their writings, and that they did not want to give us their interpretations, but rather the WORD OF GOD.

But John does give us view necessarily, just every author of a book of the Bible gives us their view. I don't see how this disqualifies the author, or turns forces us to consider 'what the Lord is telling [us]' vs. what the Lord inspired a Biblical author to write? That seems like a silly tension to entertain. Surely if the Lord is telling you something about John, then it will agree with John, given that the Lord also inspired John to write?

TrustGzus
Jan 8th 2018, 07:34 PM
Experience. And I suppose an upbringing in a Spirit filled Pentecostal environment where I learned that I do not need to go to a possible "wolf in sheep's clothing" Professor at some college to learn what a verse means, when I can just get down on my knees and ask the Lord for an explanation, and He will guide me to all truth. And yes, sometimes He will use outside sources like professors and such, but I prefer letting the Lord guide me there, or telling me directly through His Spirit. I learned it from the Word too:

1 John 2:26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. 27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
However you are to understand 1 John 2:26-27 must fit with the entire context of Scripture. Here we have a man teaching the body that they don’t need a man to teach them. Why’d he write then?

Paul mentions in Ephesians 4 that God has given us pastors and teachers for the equipping of the saints. So whatever John is saying, he cannot be contradicting himself or Paul or we are left with nonsense.

How is it that the Holy Spirit is communicating with you to give you the proper “translation”?

It seems to me people in the Scriptures, when they read the Scriptures, interpret what they read the same way they interpret anything else. Daniel in Daniel 9 reads Jeremiah 29. Great example. He simply took it for what it said. Yet few Christians today read Jeremiah 29 the way Daniel did.



I can see that you do not understand the power of the Holy Spirit the same way I do... I don't care what John thought. I care about what the LORD was telling me when John wrote it while filled with the Holy Spirit.

Soldier, read again what I wrote. I didn’t write anything about what John thought. I don’t care what John thought. What I said is I want in my Bible what John WROTE.

According to 2 Timothy 3:16, the writing is God-breathed. So I want what was written. I don’t want what wasn’t written.

So by way of simple illustration, if John wrote 1 John 5:7 (that is, if God breathed it), then I want it in my Bible. If he didn’t write it (that is, if God did NOT breath it), then I don’t want it.

I would hope every Christian would want that. If God breathed it, we should want it. If he didn’t breath it, we shouldn’t want it in our Bible.

Soldier_of_Faith
Jan 9th 2018, 03:06 PM
However you are to understand 1 John 2:26-27 must fit with the entire context of Scripture. Here we have a man teaching the body that they don’t need a man to teach them. Why’d he write then?

Paul mentions in Ephesians 4 that God has given us pastors and teachers for the equipping of the saints. So whatever John is saying, he cannot be contradicting himself or Paul or we are left with nonsense.

How is it that the Holy Spirit is communicating with you to give you the proper “translation”?

It seems to me people in the Scriptures, when they read the Scriptures, interpret what they read the same way they interpret anything else. Daniel in Daniel 9 reads Jeremiah 29. Great example. He simply took it for what it said. Yet few Christians today read Jeremiah 29 the way Daniel did.




Soldier, read again what I wrote. I didn’t write anything about what John thought. I don’t care what John thought. What I said is I want in my Bible what John WROTE.

According to 2 Timothy 3:16, the writing is God-breathed. So I want what was written. I don’t want what wasn’t written.

So by way of simple illustration, if John wrote 1 John 5:7 (that is, if God breathed it), then I want it in my Bible. If he didn’t write it (that is, if God did NOT breath it), then I don’t want it.

I would hope every Christian would want that. If God breathed it, we should want it. If he didn’t breath it, we shouldn’t want it in our Bible.

My apologies. You are right, I misunderstood what you wrote.

I understand and agree that we can not go by our own revelation through the Spirit alone most of the time, however, I will also point out that John was an Apostle, so all that he spoke was or at least IS NOW "the Word" anyways. :) What I have an issue with is our current Scholarly "teachers" teaching false doctrines as truth in our current society, much like the Apostles had issues with many Sadducee and pharisees back in their days. So if a "scholar" who did not live 100s of years ago says something does not belong in the Word of God, my spirit gets all perked up.

TrustGzus
Jan 9th 2018, 05:57 PM
My apologies. You are right, I misunderstood what you wrote.

I understand and agree that we can not go by our own revelation through the Spirit alone most of the time, however, I will also point out that John was an Apostle, so all that he spoke was or at least IS NOW "the Word" anyways. :) What I have an issue with is our current Scholarly "teachers" teaching false doctrines as truth in our current society, much like the Apostles had issues with many Sadducee and pharisees back in their days. So if a "scholar" who did not live 100s of years ago says something does not belong in the Word of God, my spirit gets all perked up.

There’s truth in what you say. Just because a scholar says something doesn’t make it true. We must ask why he says it. In the case of 1 John 5:7 the issue is that it appears in only 9 manuscripts and in 4 Of them it’s written in the margin. That’s weak evidence for originality. In addition, most are from the 16th century or later. Why so few and why so late? If John truly wrote it, what happened to it for the 1500 missing years? There is one copy from the 10th century. But still, that’s a single manuscript and still leaves over 900 years of gap. If John wrote it, the bottom line is the evidence would be much better. The truth is he didn’t write it. And I say that as a hardcore defender of Trinitarianism. In fact, I just started a thread earlier today on the Athanasian Creed in defense of the Trinity. I’d love for it to be genuinely original. Integrity demands that I admit that it is not.

Soldier_of_Faith
Jan 10th 2018, 04:03 AM
There’s truth in what you say. Just because a scholar says something doesn’t make it true. We must ask why he says it. In the case of 1 John 5:7 the issue is that it appears in only 9 manuscripts and in 4 Of them it’s written in the margin. That’s weak evidence for originality. In addition, most are from the 16th century or later. Why so few and why so late? If John truly wrote it, what happened to it for the 1500 missing years? There is one copy from the 10th century. But still, that’s a single manuscript and still leaves over 900 years of gap. If John wrote it, the bottom line is the evidence would be much better. The truth is he didn’t write it. And I say that as a hardcore defender of Trinitarianism. In fact, I just started a thread earlier today on the Athanasian Creed in defense of the Trinity. I’d love for it to be genuinely original. Integrity demands that I admit that it is not.

So if it was not there, so be it. And if it was there, so be it. What now? All those millions of bibles with that verse the way it is can not be taken away, so what now? Millions of people are going to read that and "KNOW" that it is true and never question if it belongs there... And if we both know that what is stated is true, whats wrong then?

What is the actual question here, the authority of the Word of God if something got added to a letter that John wrote and hundreds of years later was published? Or is it simply a "Hey guys that might have been added..."

If you think about it, we are all doing the same thing. These posts are our "margins". Sometimes we even insert them int the actual Texts to give better discription or flesh out a point. If we do it here, and then someone quotes what we write in a sermon or a book, or a Blog, then hasn't the same thing happened?

TrustGzus
Jan 10th 2018, 12:21 PM
So if it was not there, so be it. And if it was there, so be it. What now? All those millions of bibles with that verse the way it is can not be taken away, so what now? Millions of people are going to read that and "KNOW" that it is true and never question if it belongs there... And if we both know that what is stated is true, whats wrong then?

What is the actual question here, the authority of the Word of God if something got added to a letter that John wrote and hundreds of years later was published? Or is it simply a "Hey guys that might have been added..."

If you think about it, we are all doing the same thing. These posts are our "margins". Sometimes we even insert them int the actual Texts to give better discription or flesh out a point. If we do it here, and then someone quotes what we write in a sermon or a book, or a Blog, then hasn't the same thing happened?

We’re doing the same thing?

Soldier, do you have any Bibles where one of your posts or mine got added to the Bible and attributed to Peter, Paul, John or James and now what you or I said is called the Words of God?

You ask “if what is added is true, what does it matter?”

Ok. I think the Westminster Confession of Faith is true. 2 Timothy has 4 chapters. Can we add the Westminster Confession of Faith to 2 Timothy and make that chapter 5-37 of 2 Timothy? What do think of that idea?

Soldier_of_Faith
Jan 10th 2018, 03:42 PM
We’re doing the same thing?

Soldier, do you have any Bibles where one of your posts or mine got added to the Bible and attributed to Peter, Paul, John or James and now what you or I said is called the Words of God?

You ask “if what is added is true, what does it matter?”

Ok. I think the Westminster Confession of Faith is true. 2 Timothy has 4 chapters. Can we add the Westminster Confession of Faith to 2 Timothy and make that chapter 5-37 of 2 Timothy? What do think of that idea?

That is a terrible idea. Because the BIBLE is what it is NOW, and we keep it that way NOW. My point is on HOW it "might" have been changed 100s of years ago. I see it like this:

2000 years ago, the disciples only had the Torah and a few other manuscripts, which they called "the WORD". 1000 years ago, the Saints would say "THE WORD" and mean all the scrolls and books together, (including what the Apostles wrote) including ones that we do not have in our Bible NOW. 200 Years ago, the Saints would say "the Word" and mean the BOOK called the bible. and maybe or maybe not include other scrolls and texts. NOW, we call the bible "the WORD", PERIOD. Yet we have lost the real meaning of WHO the Word is, and HOW He speaks to us.

I believe "the Word" is JESUS CHRIST. The BOOK called the "Bible" has HIS WORD in it. It is sanctioned and authored by GOD, the WORD. (Literally spoken out of the mouth of God through the Holy Ghost to all authors of Scripture.) So then as it is NOW, it was always HIS WORD 2000-3000 years ago, whether the same as we would see it now, or not. There is no difference, except how man (according to His Spirit) placed it into leather and sewed up its pages. Because time is up, it will not change again unless Jesus Himself changes it when He comes, because He Is the WORD...

The "Bible" is paper, leather, ink and string. The WORD is breathed onto the Bible though the words, not the ink. So then, if the WORD allowed a margin note to be added to what we have now, so be it. If He did not want it there the man making the change would have fallen over dead when he made the change, and His house would have burned down with all evidence.

I have reverence and respect for the BIBLE, don't get me wrong. And I know that there are some "versions" out there that are causing confusion and separation of beliefs in the Saints as well... But I am talking about the BIBLE in a whole, as transcribed from the Holly Scriptures that were passed down to the 1600-1800s and made into the "BIBLE".

TrustGzus
Jan 10th 2018, 04:51 PM
Greetings Soldier,

For 1,000 years, anybody that read 1 John 5:6-8 read as follows....


6 Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐλθὼν διʼ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος, Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον ἀλλʼ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ ἐν τῷ αἵματι· καὶ τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν τὸ μαρτυροῦν, ὅτι τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν ἡ ἀλήθεια. 7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, 8 τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.

Then one unknown person inserted into one manuscript the following...

6 ουτος εστιν ο ελθων δι υδατος και αιματος ιησους ο χριστος ουκ εν τω υδατι μονον αλλ εν τω υδατι και τω αιματι και το πνευμα εστιν το μαρτυρουν οτι το πνευμα εστιν η αληθεια
7 οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν
8 και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν

For 1,000 years, no one had this verse in Greek. When the church debated at the council of Nicea, this verse wasn’t available to them. It didn’t exist. No copy of 1 John had it.

If the printing press didn’t exist, and you and I had hand-copied Bibles, and as you’re listening to the pastor and what he says makes you think to write a hand-written note in your hand-written Bible, did your note become the Word of God?

Now 100 years later, someone wants to make a copy of the Bible for himself. He has your hand-written copy as an exemplar to work from. He gets to where you wrote a note in the margin. Does he include it and insert it into the text?

Soldier_of_Faith
Jan 11th 2018, 12:51 AM
Greetings Soldier,

For 1,000 years, anybody that read 1 John 5:6-8 read as follows....


6 Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐλθὼν διʼ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος, Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον ἀλλʼ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ ἐν τῷ αἵματι· καὶ τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν τὸ μαρτυροῦν, ὅτι τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν ἡ ἀλήθεια. 7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, 8 τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.

Then one unknown person inserted into one manuscript the following...

6 ουτος εστιν ο ελθων δι υδατος και αιματος ιησους ο χριστος ουκ εν τω υδατι μονον αλλ εν τω υδατι και τω αιματι και το πνευμα εστιν το μαρτυρουν οτι το πνευμα εστιν η αληθεια
7 οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν
8 και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν

For 1,000 years, no one had this verse in Greek. When the church debated at the council of Nicea, this verse wasn’t available to them. It didn’t exist. No copy of 1 John had it.

If the printing press didn’t exist, and you and I had hand-copied Bibles, and as you’re listening to the pastor and what he says makes you think to write a hand-written note in your hand-written Bible, did your note become the Word of God?

Now 100 years later, someone wants to make a copy of the Bible for himself. He has your hand-written copy as an exemplar to work from. He gets to where you wrote a note in the margin. Does he include it and insert it into the text?

I follow you. He may read the scripture "verbatim", but then speak on the footnote. It is up to him. I just think the Bible is the way it is supposed to be NOW. And for those 1000 years ago, it was the way it was supposed to be then too.

randyk
Jan 11th 2018, 09:56 PM
related to an addition to 1 Jhn 5:7 and why would any one add to Gods word and what did he warn the one that adds to or takes away from his word?

I'm in favor of textual criticism that defers to scrutiny from the Alexandrian manuscripts along with the Byzantine manuscripts. This "comma" sounds like an attempt to insert a Trinitarian formula into a text that had no interest in doing such.

That being said, I think the Trinitarian formula was necessary in the centuries following the apostles and their writings. It has to do with the expansion of the Gospel beyond the Jews to the Gentiles and their philosophical understandings. The Trinity required extensive interpretation in their own particular mind set.

Personally I love the Trinitarian discussions, because it highlights common Christian understanding about God, with the result that common language is agreed upon. It suggest a *common spiritual experience* that can have a common explanation. The Trinity is one of the most difficult tests of finding a way to explain our common experience of God, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus.

And it works. We have the Creeds, which have stood the test of time, with some minor disagreements.

Steven Avery
Apr 7th 2018, 03:43 AM
For 1,000 years, no one had this verse in Greek. When the church debated at the council of Nicea, this verse wasn’t available to them. It didn’t exist. No copy of 1 John had it. It is amazing and humorous that you claim so much time machine x-ray vision to manuscripts over a thousand years.

First, the evidence is that the verse was in Ante-Nicene Greek mss. This is clear from the Greek solecism without the verse and by evidences like the Vulgate Prologue of Jerome and the usage by Cyprian (Latin and Greek savvy) and many other evidences, including Greek allusions.

You emphasize Nicea, but the Disputation of Arius and Athanasius at Nicea clearly references the verse. As does the Synopsis of Scripture.

Granted, the Greek evidences were much lighter than the Latin, and the verse clearly had dropped out of the Greek mss, perhaps by 500 AD or later. (We have very few extant mss with 1 John 5 before 800 AD.)

At the same time, in the wider-ranging Latin manuscripts and writers and churches, the verse was essentially everywhere. From the Old Latin mss to Tertullian and Cyprian to Jerome and his Vulgate Prologue to hundreds of bishops from a wide Meditteranean region specifically emphasizing the heavenly witnesses contra the Arians at the 481 Council of Carthage.

Steven

Steven Avery
Apr 7th 2018, 03:54 AM
This "comma" sounds like an attempt to insert a Trinitarian formula into a text that had no interest in doing such. This is basically refuted by the Cyprian reference, which was before the Arian controversies.

In fact, the Trinitarians likely found the verse a bit discomfiting in the earlier Sabellian controversies. Homoeoteuton could easily lead to a split Greek line, and with the heavenly witnesses seen as awkward or discomfiting, there would be a tendency to gravitate to the shorter text. Later this normalized in the Greek, while the longer text was always the Latin text from ancient days.

It is much easier for an omission to take over a text-line than an addition. Omissions are easily missed, or slip by, the boat is not rocked. An addition immediately glares out and have a very difficult vector of transmission and can even lead to a scribe losing their job.

This is also one of the reasons why you can be sure that the traditional Mark ending and the Pericope Adulterae and Acts 8:37 and "Father, forgive them..." are all pure and perfect scripture.

Steven

Overste
Apr 24th 2018, 01:52 PM
It is amazing and humorous that you claim so much time machine x-ray vision to manuscripts over a thousand years.


You mean, like YOU do.....when you claim "the text-line split"?



First, the evidence is that the verse was in Ante-Nicene Greek mss.


Only if by "evidence" you mean "NO evidence"....




This is clear from the Greek solecism without the verse


Just a reminder that Steven Avery Spenser does not know Greek and hence is unqualified to comment upon it.




and by evidences like the Vulgate Prologue of Jerome







and the usage by Cyprian (Latin and Greek savvy)


The same Cyprian who:
a) did not know Greek (and you've known this now for years, so why do you continue?)
b) did not quote the passage
c) allegorized many passages
d) added at least FOUR OTHER things to 1 John that are not in the text



and many other evidences, including Greek allusions.


In other words.....after cutting through this mountain of assertions, there is ZERO Greek evidence. None. Zippo. It has to be ASSUMED it was there.




You emphasize Nicea, but the Disputation of Arius and Athanasius at Nicea clearly references the verse. As does the Synopsis of Scripture.


The Disputation of Arius is a later forgery and irrelevant. Athanasisus did NOT cite it at Nicea (that's a false claim).



Granted, the Greek evidences were much lighter than the Latin,


Which is proof positive it's a Latin corruption.....(you never seem to follow through)




and the verse clearly had dropped out of the Greek mss, perhaps by 500 AD or later.


Only if by "clearly dropped" you mean "clearly wasn't there."




(We have very few extant mss with 1 John 5 before 800 AD.)


The part he fails to mention is, "ALL of which attest AGAINST the Comma Johanneum." Unless this guy - who argues for some sort of mythical preservation imperative - wants me to believe that I cannot trust the Greek MSS of the first millennium - ANY of them.



At the same time, in the wider-ranging Latin manuscripts and writers and churches, the verse was essentially everywhere. From the Old Latin mss to Tertullian and Cyprian to Jerome and his Vulgate Prologue to hundreds of bishops from a wide Meditteranean region specifically emphasizing the heavenly witnesses contra the Arians at the 481 Council of Carthage.


1) You're overstating the case
2) Those do not constitute INDEPENDENT witnesses, as has been explained to you elsewhere and yet you come here and pretend you don't know this.

And the ONLY reason you're doing this is simple: you don't have any evidence in your favor in the first place.

Shouting it louder may work in the indy fundy circles of obscurantists where you frequent, but it simply isn't going to persuade anyone with an iota of intelligence.

Overste
Apr 24th 2018, 05:28 PM
This is basically refuted by the Cyprian reference, which was before the Arian controversies.


You're referring to the passage where Cyprian DOES NOT quote the Comma????



In fact, the Trinitarians likely found the verse a bit discomfiting in the earlier Sabellian controversies.


Had this been around, of course, there would actually be mounds of material explaining why the Sabellian position is wrong.




Homoeoteuton could easily lead to a split Greek line,


Not in this case. For someone who claims to have read my thesis that covered this very point, you either didn't read it very well (I suspect you never read it at all) or
you're just hoping nobody points it out.





and with the heavenly witnesses seen as awkward or discomfiting, there would be a tendency to gravitate to the shorter text.


And NOW you're talking out of both sides of the same mouth. You're the one telling us it's NOT awkward because it's awkward WITHOUT it because solecism....now you're
literally contradicting your prior claim.....which is further proof of the inherent flaw of the pro-CJ position.




Later this normalized in the Greek, while the longer text was always the Latin text from ancient days.


Absolutely untrue at every level.




It is much easier for an omission to take over a text-line than an addition.
Omissions are easily missed, or slip by, the boat is not rocked. An addition immediately glares out and have a very difficult vector of transmission and can even lead to a scribe losing their job.


More fake news...



This is also one of the reasons why you can be sure that the traditional Mark ending and the Pericope Adulterae and Acts 8:37 and "Father, forgive them..." are all pure and perfect scripture.


but that's not why you argue those.....you argue the so-called 99.9% of the MSS for Mark 16......but you abandon the 99% here.....

WHY?

Because Greek has nothing to do with your position AT ALL and any argument from it on your behalf is pretentious and misleading.

You are a KJV Onlyist and the reason those are Scripture IN YOUR OPINION is because they wound up in the KJV. That's all. The Greek is pointless for your argument.

Firebrand4God
Apr 25th 2018, 01:50 AM
The warning in the final chapter of the Revelation of Jesus Christ has no application to the First Epistle of John or any other text in Holy Writ.