• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Matthew Henry on 1 John 5:7

SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
Conan said:
Thats when they are first known in Greek. A translation of a Latin council into Greek.
Click to expand...

I think that you guys are a bit mad on here!

You have argued that Cyprian who lived in the 3rd century and quotes from 1 John 5.7 is not valid because he is Latin. And then you refer to a LATIN Council!!! :eek:
 
C

Conan

Well-Known Member
SavedByGrace said:
When we have actual quotes from Tertullian and Cyprian who both knew Greek and Latin in the THIRD century. 1215 is LUNACY
Click to expand...
Again, you only have Cyprian in Latin, not Greek. There is not one trace of his writing in Greek; I wish there was, since he quotes 1 John 5:8, not verse 7. You have no writing from Cyprian in Greek, he is quoting Latin Bibles, and did not quote from verse 7.
 
C

Conan

Well-Known Member
SavedByGrace said:
I think that you guys are a bit mad on here!

You have argued that Cyprian who lived in the 3rd century and quotes from 1 John 5.7 is not valid because he is Latin. And then you refer to a LATIN Council!!! :eek:
Click to expand...
You have not been paying attention. I say he quoted verse 8 not 7. There is no record of the interpolation written in Greek until 1215. Do you have a record in Greek?
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
Conan said:
You have not been paying attention. I say he quoted verse 8 not 7. There is no record of the interpolation written in Greek until 1215. Do you have a record in Greek?
Click to expand...

One of the foremost textual scholars in the Christian Church, Fred Scrivener, had this to say of the quote found in Cyprian. Scrivener himself did not accept that the words are genuine, but his testimony on Cyprian is very important

“it is surely safer and more candid to admit that Cyprian read ver. 7 in his copies, than to resort to the explanation of Facundus [vi], that the holy Bishop was merely putting on ver. 8 a spiritual meaning” (Plain Introduction, vol. II, p.405)

Tertullian also quotes from the same verse, and he used the Greek New Testament and translated himself into Latin

“Tertullian of Carthage (222) wrote particularly in Latin, but also in Greek. He also sometimes used a Latin Bible, sometimes a Greek, probably oftener the former than the latter. It is improbable that his Greek Bible was very different in text from the Greek text underlying his Latin Bible” (A Souter; The Text and canon of the New Testament, p.79). Frederic Kenyon adds, that Tertullian “seems often to have made his own translations from the Greek” (The Text of the Greek Bible, p.136)

Evidence that cannot be refuted!
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
Conan said:
Again, you only have Cyprian in Latin, not Greek. There is not one trace of his writing in Greek; I wish there was, since he quotes 1 John 5:8, not verse 7. You have no writing from Cyprian in Greek, he is quoting Latin Bibles, and did not quote from verse 7.
Click to expand...

“Before the winter of 256 Cyprian’s messengers to Firmilian returned with his reply, the most enthusiastic letter of the series. We have it in Cyprian’s translation from the Greek” (H Wace The Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects, and Doctrines)
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
The Archangel said:
so I would have no need to attempt to do so
Click to expand...


more like you cannot!

I have posted the link to my thread on the Greek grammar, which you ignore, because it cannot be refuted. I have also given a link to Dr Robert Dabney a leading Reformed theologian and Greek scholar, where he shows that the greek in 1 John 5:7 shows that the words are genuine. and this too you ignore. you only want things that you agree with, and that you cannot refute you ignore!
 
The Archangel

The Archangel

Well-Known Member
SavedByGrace said:
more like you cannot!

I have posted the link to my thread on the Greek grammar, which you ignore, because it cannot be refuted. I have also given a link to Dr Robert Dabney a leading Reformed theologian and Greek scholar, where he shows that the greek in 1 John 5:7 shows that the words are genuine. and this too you ignore. you only want things that you agree with, and that you cannot refute you ignore!
Click to expand...

I have no need to refute something so thoroughly refuted by others. I'm not ignoring it at all. I've read other scholars on the issue and find your position wanting because it does not jive with the best evidence and shows flawed logic on your part.

The Archangel
 
C

Conan

Well-Known Member
SavedByGrace said:
“Before the winter of 256 Cyprian’s messengers to Firmilian returned with his reply, the most enthusiastic letter of the series. We have it in Cyprian’s translation from the Greek” (H Wace The Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects, and Doctrines)
Click to expand...
Doesnt sound right at all. Probably wasnt even written in the time period. That why scholars on either side of the debade never quote that.
 
C

Conan

Well-Known Member
SavedByGrace said:
One of the foremost textual scholars in the Christian Church, Fred Scrivener, had this to say of the quote found in Cyprian. Scrivener himself did not accept that the words are genuine, but his testimony on Cyprian is very important

“it is surely safer and more candid to admit that Cyprian read ver. 7 in his copies, than to resort to the explanation of Facundus [vi], that the holy Bishop was merely putting on ver. 8 a spiritual meaning” (Plain Introduction, vol. II, p.405)
Click to expand...

I respect Scrivener, but this is only his opinion. Lots of others disagree.
Tertullian also quotes from the same verse, and he used the Greek New Testament and translated himself into Latin

“Tertullian of Carthage (222) wrote particularly in Latin, but also in Greek. He also sometimes used a Latin Bible, sometimes a Greek, probably oftener the former than the latter. It is improbable that his Greek Bible was very different in text from the Greek text underlying his Latin Bible” (A Souter; The Text and canon of the New Testament, p.79). Frederic Kenyon adds, that Tertullian “seems often to have made his own translations from the Greek” (The Text of the Greek Bible, p.136)

Evidence that cannot be refuted!
Click to expand...
This most certainly can be. These are the guesses of 2 dead scholars. They don't cite evidence, but give opinions. The Old Latin is very much different than the Greek. Doesnt he know that?
 
BasketFinch

BasketFinch

Active Member
SavedByGrace said:
Matthew Henry Commentary on 1 John 5.7 and The Trinity

1 John 5:6-9

1. We are stopped in our course by the contest there is about the genuineness of v. 7. It is alleged that many old Greek manuscripts have it not. We shall not here enter into the controversy. It should seem that the critics are not agreed what manuscripts have it and what not; nor do they sufficiently inform us of the integrity and value of the manuscripts they peruse. Some may be so faulty, as I have an old printed Greek Testament so full of errata, that one would think no critic would establish a various lection thereupon. But let the judicious collators of copies manage that business. There are some rational surmises that seem to support the present text and reading. As,

(1.) If we admit v. 8, in the room of v. 7, it looks too like a tautology and repetition of what was included in v. 6, This is he that came by water and blood, not by water only, but by water and blood; and it is the Spirit that beareth witness. For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, the water, and the blood. This does not assign near so noble an introduction of these three witnesses as our present reading does.

(2.) It is observed that many copies read that distinctive clause, upon the earth: There are three that bear record upon the earth. Now this bears a visible opposition to some witness or witnesses elsewhere, and therefore we are told, by the adversaries of the text, that this clause must be supposed to be omitted in most books that want v. 7. But it should for the same reason be so in all. Take we v. 6, This is he that came by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. It would not now naturally and properly be added, For there are three that bear record on earth, unless we should suppose that the apostle would tell us that all the witnesses are such as are on earth, when yet he would assure us that one is infallibly true, or even truth itself.

(3.) It is observed that there is a variety of reading even in the Greek text, as in v. 7. Some copies read hen eisi—are one; others (at least the Complutensian) eis to hen eisin—are to one, or agree in one; and in v. 8 (in that part that it is supposed should be admitted), instead of the common en te ge—in earth, the Complutensian reads epi tes ges—upon earth, which seems to show that that edition depended upon some Greek authority, and not merely, as some would have us believe, upon the authority either of the vulgar Latin or of Thomas Aquinas, though his testimony may be added thereto.

(4.) The seventh verse is very agreeable to the style and the theology of our apostle; as, [1.] He delights in the title the Father, whether he indicates thereby God only, or a divine person distinguished from the Son. I and the Father are one. And Yet I am not alone; because the Father is with me. I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another comforter. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. Grace be with you, and peace from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, 2 John 3. Then, [2.] The name the Word is known to be almost (if not quite) peculiar to this apostle. Had the text been devised by another, it had been more easy and obvious, from the form of baptism, and the common language of the church, to have used the name Son instead of that of the Word. As it is observed that Tertullian and Cyprian use that name, even when they refer to this verse; or it is made an objection against their referring to this verse, because they speak of the Son, not the Word; and yet Cyprian's expression seems to be very clear by the citation of Facundus himself. Quod Johannis apostoli testimonium beatus Cyprianus, Carthaginensis antistes et martyr, in epistolâ sive libro, quem de Trinitate scripsit, de Patre, Filio, et Spiritu sancto dictum intelligit; ait enim, Dicit Dominus, Ego et Pater unum sumus; et iterum de Patre, Filio, et Spiritu sancto scriptum est, Et hi tres unum sunt.—Blessed Cyprian, the Carthaginian bishop and martyr, in the epistle or book he wrote concerning the Trinity, considered the testimony of the apostle John as relating to the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit; for he says, the Lord says, I and the Father are one; and again, of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit it is written, And these three are one. Now it is nowhere written that these are one, but in v. 7. It is probable than that St. Cyprian, either depending on his memory, or rather intending things more than words, persons more than names, or calling persons by their names more usual in the church (both in popular and polemic discourses), called the second by the name of the Son rather than of the Word. If any man can admit Facundus's fancy, that Cyprian meant that the Spirit, the water, and the blood, were indeed the Father, Word, and Spirit, that John said were one, he may enjoy his opinion to himself. For, First, He must suppose that Cyprian not only changed all the names, but the apostle's order too. For the blood (the Son), which Cyprian puts second, the apostle puts last. And, Secondly, He must suppose that Cyprian thought that by the blood which issued out of the side of the Son the apostle intended the Son himself, who might as well have been denoted by the water,—that by the water, which also issued from the side of the Son, the apostle intended the person of the Holy Ghost,—that by the Spirit, which in v. 6 is said to be truth, and in the gospel is called the Spirit of truth, the apostle meant the person of the Father, though he is nowhere else so called when joined with the Son and the Holy Ghost. We require good proof that the Carthaginian father could so understand the apostle. He who so understands him must believe too that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are said to be three witnesses on earth. Thirdly, Facundus acknowledges that Cyprian says that of his three it is written, Et hi tres unum sunt—and these three are one. Now these are the words, not of v. 8, but of v. 7. They are not used concerning the three on earth, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; but the three in heaven, the Father, and the Word, and the Holy Ghost. So we are told that the author of the book De baptismo haereticorum, allowed to be contemporary with Cyprian, cites John's words, agreeably to the Greek manuscripts and the ancient versions, thus: Ait enim Johannes de Domino nostro in epistolâ nos docens, Hic es qui venit per aquam et sanguinem, Jesus Christus, non in aquâ tantùm, sed in aquâ et sanguine; et Spiritus est qui testimonium perhibet, quia Spiritus est veritas; quia tres testimonium perhibent, Spiritus et aqua et sanguis, et isti tres in unum sunt—For John, in his epistle, says concerning our Lord, This is he, Jesus Christ, who came by water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood; and it is the Spirit that bears witness, because the Spirit is truth; for there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three agree in one. If all the Greek manuscripts and ancient versions say concerning the Spirit, the water, and the blood, that in unum sunt—they agree in one, then it was not of them that Cyprian spoke, whatever variety there might be in the copies in his time, when he said it is written, unum sunt—they are one. And therefore Cyprian's words seem still to be a firm testimony to v. 7, and an intimation likewise that a forger of the text would have scarcely so exactly hit upon the apostolical name for the second witness in heaven, the Word. Them, [3.] As only this apostle records the history of the water and blood flowing out of the Saviour's side, so it is he only, or he principally, who registers to us the Saviour's promise and prediction of the Holy spirit's coming to glorify him, and to testify of him, and to convince the world of its own unbelief and of his righteousness, as in his gospel, ch. 14:16,17,26; 15:26; 16:7-15. It is most suitable then to the diction and to the gospel of this apostle thus to mention the Holy Ghost as a witness for Jesus Christ. Then,

(5.) 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 who could hope to escape detection and shame; and profane too, who durst venture to make an addition to a supposed sacred book. And,
Click to expand...
Jesus is the spirit. ( The word made flesh, John 1). He is also the water of life, (John 7). And the new covenant blood, (Luke 22).
 
J

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
SavedByGrace said:
more like you cannot!

I have posted the link to my thread on the Greek grammar, which you ignore, because it cannot be refuted. I have also given a link to Dr Robert Dabney a leading Reformed theologian and Greek scholar, where he shows that the greek in 1 John 5:7 shows that the words are genuine. and this too you ignore. you only want things that you agree with, and that you cannot refute you ignore!
Click to expand...
was he a better grammarian then either Dr Wallace or Dr AT ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top