The Sound of Silence

Actually Dr. Bob, IMO the Vulgate (apart from the Apocrypha) is a valuable tool in the reconstruction of the NT.

HankD

 

Heresy? A heresy is something that departs from orthodoxy. My beliefs do not. Yours do.

1)Im not your "friend". </font>[/QUOTE] Perhaps... but I am yours. I don't hate you or consider you the enemy. I think you are wrong about KJVOnlyism... and that KJVOnlyism is a danger to you and anyone you might influence on the topic.

My goal is to deal with what you believe, not to be hurtful or spiteful to you.

Did you just pull this out of the thin air? Neither the older Antiochian mss nor the Antiochian patristics support the KJV's rendering of I John 5:7-8. If you have evidence that they did, please show it.

It doesn't but when we are talking about God's Word, the fact that there is no evidence of this reading in the language God chose to inspire His Word in is strong testimony against it.

Yes,but it comes from Scriveners TR</font>[/QUOTE]The Scriveners is basically a TR custom made to support the KJV... what more could you want?

The NKJV list significant variants in the margin between its text and the MT or CT.

From what I understand, the NKJV follows the TR in its text and places variants in the margin. If you have evidence or scripture citations proving this to be untrue, please list them.

Who cares?? I'm not out to impress anyone,I'm just showing how bankrupt the BAO position is..</font>[/QUOTE] As a Christian, you should care. Falsely limiting alternatives is a form of lying.

You just keep believing that;it CANNOT be both lines,stop riding the fence... </font>[/QUOTE]Why? Why can't it be all of them? You stated earlier that translations that come from the same textual tradition as the KJV are the Word of God... so you only believe it "CANNOT be both" when it suits your purpose.

 

While it's true that many of the Old Itala mss contain 1 John 5:7...</font>[/QUOTE]What is the earliest citation of the Comma as part of the text of I John 5:7-8 in the Old Itala?

 

As far as I know, and my knowledge is certainly not complete for I am still a lowly student, the oldest Italic manuscript containing the comma is "m" which dates to about the mid 3rd century. The next is "r" which dates to about the early 5th century.

 

Someone already named m The earliest Latin Fathers are :

1) 200 - Tertullian quotes the verse (Gill, "An exposition of the NT", Vol 2, pp. 907-8)
Highly disputed.

2) 250 - Cyprian, who writes, "And again concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: 'and the Three are One'" (Vienna, vol. iii, p. 215) Disputed.

These are undisputed as are most after them.

3) 350 - Priscillian cites the verse (Vienna, vol. xviii, p. 6)
4) 350 - Idacius Clarus cites the verse (MPL, vol. 62, Colossians. 359)
5) 350 - Athanasius cites the verse (Gill)

http://www.geocities.com/lasttrumpet_2000/theo/1jn57.html

HankD

 

If it is John Gill, I am somewhat familiar with him although I would be interested in his sources as well.

What are these other references?

If #1 and #2 are in fact genuine quotes then I find incredible that this text wasn't the focus of the Nicene council in 325. If I understand correctly, I John 5:7-8 wasn't cited at all. This puts us in a position to believe a powerful testimony for the Trinity was ignored by 318 of the best church scholars from every corner of the Christian world. A possibility.... but not by much.

BTW, I looked at the link and noticed that #6 comes from a book by Ruckman... makes the caution light come on, you know.

 

Yes, the Comma is really thin ice but personally I'm holding out for more 1 John mss discoveries, they are rather rare among the NT books

Actually Ruckman does have some legitimate claims (IMO) but I just can't buy the "throw out the TR where it disagrees with the AV" or his constant mockery of other believers. But he seems of two minds about the TR, praising it in on one page but then throwing it out one another.

HankD

 

As far as I know, and my knowledge is certainly not complete for I am still a lowly student, the oldest Italic manuscript containing the comma is "m" which dates to about the mid 3rd century. The next is "r" which dates to about the early 5th century. </font>[/QUOTE]The earliest actual complete text Old Latin MSS to have the Comma are l and q, both 7th C. The Old Latin m (sometimes called the Speculum) is not a continuous text MS but rather a florilegium, or collection of Scriptural quotations; it dates from the 5th C., and it also has the Comma.

 

Which is it? Did m come from the 3rd or 5th century?

 

Someone already named m The earliest Latin Fathers are :

1) 200 - Tertullian quotes the verse (Gill, "An exposition of the NT", Vol 2, pp. 907-8)
Highly disputed.</font>[/QUOTE]And rightly so. Gill is mistaken, as an examination of the passage itself shows. Tertullian describes the triune nature of God in this passage and clearly quotes Jn. 10:30, but it is hardly clear that he is also quoting the Comma.

"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, one essence, not one Person, as it is said, “I and my Father are One,” in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number." (Against Praxeas, 25.1)

Tertullian's use of the phrase "these three are one" is no more a quotation of the Comma than Chrysostom's use of "the three are one" in the passage below is a quotation of the Comma:

"Behold again a third ground of obligation; for he shows that a man leaving them that begat him, and from whom he was born, is knit to his wife; and that then the one flesh is, father, and mother, and the child, from the substance of the two commingled. For indeed by the commingling of their seeds is the child produced, so that THE THREE ARE ONE flesh." (Chrysostom, Homily 20 on Ephesians).

Tertullian's alleged citation must be set aside because of its extremely high degree of uncertainty.

Again, rightly so. Cyprian's alleged citation of the Comma is uncertain because it is not at all clear whether the words he is actually quoting from 1 John are from the disputed Comma or from the undisputed sentence next to it.

There are numerous variations of 1 Jn. 5:7-8 in the Old Latin texts, both with and without the Comma. The basic reading of the form *with* the Comma (with some variation) is:

"Tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in terra, spiritus (et) aqua et sanguis, et (hi) tres unum sunt; et tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in caelo, pater (et) verbum et spiritus, et (hi) tres unum sunt."

"There are three who bear witness on earth, [the] Spirit (and) [the] water and [the] blood, and ([the]/these) three are one; and there are three who bear witness in heaven, [the] Father (and) the Word and the Spirit, and ([the]/these) three are one."

The basic reading of the Old Latin text *without* the Comma (again, with some variation) is:

"Tres sunt qui testimonium dant, spiritus (et) aqua et sanguis, et (hi) tres unum sunt."

"There are three who bear witness, [the] Spirit (and) [the] water and [the] blood, and ([the]/these) three are one."

Compare both forms with Cyprian's quotation:

"Dicit Dominus: 'Ego et pater unum sumus;' et iterum de Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto, scriptum est: 'Et tres unum sunt.'" (De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate, 6).

"The Lord says, 'I and [the] Father are one;' and again of [the] Father, [the] Son, and [the] Holy Spirit it is written: 'And [the] three are one.'"

Since the only words Cyprian explicitly quotes from 1 John following the introductory formula "scriptum est" ("it is written") are "et tres unum sunt" ("and [the] three are one"), and since those words appear in forms of the Old Latin text both *with* and *without* the Comma, we have no certain way of knowing which form Cyprian knew and used.

Cyprian's alleged citation must also be set aside because of its extremely high degree of uncertainty

The Priscillan citation is undisputed. I'm not so sure about the other two; the alleged Athanasius citation I'm especially cautious about. I'd have to see them in their entirety and in context to make any judgment.

 

That is a lie..That passage came from the Old Latin;Jerome had to take it from the O-L to complete his "bible". </font>[/QUOTE]The passage was *added* to some Old Latin MSS because a well-intentioned but ill-informed scribe wanted to have an iron-clad proof text for the Trinity. It wasn't originally part of First John.

 

This is the info I got from "TheologyWeb"

It seems the date is disputed, ranging anywhere from mid 3rd to mid 6th century. One author stated the actual date of the manuscript was most likely mid 5th but is considered a witness of earlier texts because it is thought that the scripture quotes come from Cyprian whose writings date to about 250 AD.

I have no idea how accurate that suggestion is.

 

So the earliest undisputed citation is about 350 AD? I think looking back over history like this it is easy to lose perspective on how long 250 years is and how much things can change...

 

The evidence against the Comma's originality is overwhelming.

It is not found in the text of any extant Greek MS before the 14th C.
It is not found in the Syriac (Peshitta or Harklean).
It is not found in the Coptic (Sahidic or Bohairic).
It is not found in the Ethiopian, or the Georgian, or the Slavic, or in many MSS of the Armenian.
It is not found in the citations of Greek Fathers such as Clement, Origen, Cyril, Ps-Dionysius, John of Damascus, or the writings of *any* Greek Father from the time of the great Christological and Trinitarian controversies of the 3rd and 4th centuries.
It is not found in the citations of Latin Fathers such as Ambrose, Augustine, Hilary of Poitiers, Leo the Great, Gregory the Great, or Facundus.

In other words, the Comma is not found *anywhere* in the *entire ancient world* before the 7th C. *except* the Latin West. So we have one of two possibilities:

(1) The Comma was not originally part of the text of 1 John. It originated in the Latin West (where *many* such additions to the NT text originated) as an "orthodox corruption" designed to provide a Trinitarian "proof text" to be used in the theological controversies of the 4th C.

(2) The Comma was originally part of the text of 1 John. Heretics managed to sneak in under the very noses of orthodox Christians *everywhere* throughout the ancient world and remove it from the text of *every* Greek MS and *every* ancient version *except* the Western Latin without anybody noticing. They managed to do so thorough a job that no trace of the Comma exists in the text of any extant Greek copy of 1 John before the 14th C., each of which was presumably made from an exemplar without the Comma.

Option (1) is the only reasonable option in light of the evidence.

 

Please cite your source and evidence (such as early church father testimony) that the Comma was "added" by a Latin scribe.

My theory: The Comma was dropped (homeoteleuton?) early on in the copying process (Greek) perhaps even copy # 1, but not from the earliest Old Itala translation from the original.

Thank BTW for your other factual data.

HankD

 

Please cite your source and evidence (such as early church father testimony) that the Comma was "added" by a Latin scribe.</font>[/QUOTE]There's no direct evidence of this; it's a probable deduction based on the totality of the evidence.

That's *highly* unlikely because of the wording of the text with the Comma. The problem with an h.t. explanation for the omission is the presence of the words εν τω υρανω ("in heaven") and εν την γη ("on earth") after the two used of the substantive participle οι μαρτυρουντες ("the ones who bear witness"). Let me see if I can convey this in English. The only way to account for the absence of the Comma by h.t. would be if the original text read as follows:

"For there are three that bear witness,

[the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness,]

the Spirit, and the water, and the blood:
and these three are unto one."

You can see how the scribe's eye might have skipped from the end of the first occurrence of "bear witness" to the end of the second one, eliminating the material in between. But the text with the Comma doesn't read that way. Rather it reads:


"For there are three that bear witness in heaven,

[the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness on earth,]

the Spirit, and the water, and the blood:
and these three are unto one."

Because of the location of the phrases "in heaven" and "on earth," there's no similar ending for the scribe's eye to skip over. If there *were* omission by h.t., we would expect to see the phrase "on earth" appear in the shorter text; but it doesn't. For this reason omission of the Comma by h.t. (on the assumption of its originality) is improbable to the extreme.

You're most welcome.

 

But Archangel, don't you know that 7 and 8 are sometimes reversed in the Itala?

Which may have been the original wording or even some other arrangement of the words.

Check it out.

HankD

 

Yes, there are variations in the Old Latin texts with the Comma, which makes it all the more suspect as a doctrinally motivated addition to the "Western" text. How exactly would the variations in the Old Latin explain the omission of the Comma from Greek texts by h.t., though? (assuming the originality of the Comma, of course).

 

I'm not sure since we don't have the original
but word order in the original greek does impact your explanation.

I could come up with a scenario but I'de rather not do the research. I was just wondering if you knew of the diversity of the Comma in the Itala which apparently you do.

HankD