Question for Catholics only

What is the Johannine Comma?

 

It is my understanding that there was no punctuation at all in the OT.

That may be true of the NT also. But that I just don't know. We have some Greek scholars here that might be able to answer that question.

Certainly the Chapter and verse designations were added later. Ya gotta really watch those Catholics.

Grace and peace,
Uncle Ray

 

UncleRay is right according to Henry Graham's 18th century work, "Where we Got the Bible". There was no punctuation, sentences, captializatoin, chapter and verse numbers in Jewish writings. These things were ALL added in the 4th or 5th century. So your question is a rather moot one sola. Perhaps you want to remove all the punctuatoin and chapter and verse markings in the Bible.

Here is an online image of the Psalms in the dead sea scrolls. Do you see any punctuation, etc.???

http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/deadsea.scrolls.exhibit/full-images/psalm-b.gif

 

Ahem ... guys ...

The "Johannine comma" doesn't refer to a punctuation mark. It refers to a "controversial" (for want of a better word) verse: 1 John 5:7.

Most older translations of the Bible (e.g. KJV, Douay-Rheims, etc.) translate that verse along these lines: "And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one."

Newer translations (e.g. NAB, NIV, etc.) tend to omit that language, sometimes with a footnote noting the omission.

The difference arises from differences in the texts on which the translations are based. As I understand it, the disputed language does not appear in the oldest surviving texts of John's epistle. The theory is that it was added as a marginal note in a manuscript, and later got recopied as part of the actual text.

I will say, Sola, that I am rather surprised that it's not footnoted in the NAB. It should be, IMHO. It's probably a case of "contemporary scholarship" being so sure of itself that it was felt unnecessary to include a footnote.

Of course, lack of belief in the Trinity isn't a particularly widespread problem among Catholics anyhow.

Mark H.

 

It is my understanding that it does not appear in any Greek manuscript prior to the 16th century.

 

There are some that maintain that the Comma was alluded to by some "Church Fathers" in Africa in their disputes with the Arians, and that it was maintained in many Latin manuscripts, as the Greek was translated into "Old" Latin early on. Some would also suggest that the Comma "fell out" of the Text in the East by a copyist's omission and the texts sans Comma were retained by those combatting the Sabellian heresy which (much like today's Oneness Pentecostals) stressed the "three" were merely different MODES of the same PERSON, rather than being three PERSONS in one BEING. Advocates for the inclusion of the Comma also point to some apparent grammatical difficulties that exist in the text which would be resolved if the Comma was included. Also, the formula of "Father, WORD, and Holy Spirit" suggests Johannine authenticity. (If the Comma was a scribal addition, so the theory goes, then the more familiar formula of "Father, SON, and Holy Spirit" would probably have been used.)

I find the above arguements intriguing if not absolutely convincing. It is POSSIBLE that the Comma was original; I just don't know how PROBABLE. However, even if the verse is not original, the Doctrine of the Trinity can still be deduced from Scripture.

(I know I'm not Catholic--I just thought I 'd throw in my 2 cents)

 

Thomas,

Thanks for those insights. Could you suggest a good article or other source that discusses the allusions by the African church fathers that you mentioned?

(I'm a "comma" fan myself, but haven't really done the heavy research to express a very intelligent opinion one way or the other).

Thanks,

Mark

 

Sola:

I believe I John 5:7 is inspired of God. I base this on harmony with other pasages relevant to the text. Harmony with the totality of the evidence. I might add some argue that Mark 16:16-20 should not be in the text for the same reason ( some manuscripts do not contain it). However, if one reads the context and omits verse 16-20 he finds himself embarrassed by his poor grammar and the ending of verse 15.
I cannot address the original greek at this time. I am at work and do not have that info available to me. However, perhaps a thread should be started on whether Mark 16:16-20 should be in the text of scripture. It could be a good study.

 

SO why is this verse called the 'comma'?

I have never heard that some question the authenticity of this passage.

How strange.

 

Hi 3A,

According to my Webster's dictionary, "comma" in Latin means "part of a sentence" (from the Greek "komma," meaning a segment or a clause).

I guess that's why, in English, we call the punctuation mark that divides a sentence into parts a "comma."

God bless,

Mark

 

3AM,

It actually is very doubtful according to modern scholarship. There is extremely little Greek manuscript evidence for it, and I heard a story that Erasmus was pressured by folks in the Catholic church to put it in. He said if you could find a Greek manuscript with it he would. It is said that they had one made up, so he included it so as not to eat his words.

But that is just a story, I don't know if true. I myself have no problem with the passage, it is orthodox, however there is little real evidence for it being authentic.

Neal

 

Actually, it is Mark 16:9-20 that is in question. Also, John 7:53-8:11 is questioned as to whether it is authentic. However, I must point out there is much more evidence for these two passages than there is for I John 5:7's reading. That said, I really see nothing wrong with I John 5:7. I don't think we will ever KNOW whether it is authentic or not, rather we will always feel it is because it is very orthodox and sounds real good.

Neal

 

Sola,

Thank you for the latest conspiracy theory.

God bless,

Grant

 

Neal:
My point about I John 5:7 and Mark 16:9-20 is that there is evidence to accept them as inspired. Any document of antiquity, especially one that is a copy from an original one, must be weighed in light of manuscript evidence for sure. However, this is not the only criteria for inspiration. A passage must harmonize with others related to the one in question. A passage, obviously, could not contradict others in the Bible. I John 5:7, Mark 16, John 7 meet all these criteria. There is manuscript evidence for all these passages. The ones in question are harmonious with other related passages, and do not contradict any found in the Bible. Therefore, I must conclude they are inspired of God. If you know of another way to authenticate a passage, please let me know.

 

Evidence for the early existence of the Johannine comma is found in the Latin versions and in the writings of the Latin Church Fathers. For example, it seems to have been quoted at Carthage by Cyprian (c. 250) who writes as follows: "And again concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: and the Three are One." (29) It is true that Facundus, a 6th-century African bishop, interpreted Cyprian as referring to the following verse, (30) but, as Scrivener (1833) remarks, it is "surely safer and more candid" to admit that Cyprian read the Johannine comma in his New Testament manuscript "than to resort to the explanation of Facundus." (31)

The first undisputed citations of the Johannine comma occur in the writing of two 4th-century Spanish bishops, Priscillian, (32) who in 385 was beheaded by the Emperor Maximus on the charge of sorcery and heresy, and Idacius Clarus, (33) Priscillian's principal adversary and accuser. In the 5th century the Johannine comma was quoted by several orthodox African writers to defend the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals, who ruled North Africa from 489 to 534 and were fanatically attached to the Arian heresy. (34) And about the same time it was cited by Cassiodorus (480-570), in Italy. (35) The comma is also found in r an Old Latin manuscript of the 5th or 6th century, and in the Speculum, a treatise which contains an Old Latin text. It was not included in Jerome's original edition of the Latin Vulgate but around the year 800 it was taken into the text of the Vulgate from the Old Latin manuscripts. It was found in the great mass of the later Vulgate manuscripts and in the Clementine edition of the Vulgate, the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church.
KJV Defended

Hills entire book, The King James Bible Defended, can be downloaded from this site. It gives answers for many of the questions that have been asked in this thread.
DHK

 

Frank,

I wasn't trying to argue with you or say that those passages are not authentic. I have no doubts about Mark 16 and John 8, and as for I John 5:7 I feel there is enough 'evidence' for it not to be excluded. My point was that we can't know for sure, we have to do the best we can. But there is reason for argument from both sides. Sorry if it seemed like I wanted to argue, that is not it. I agree with you for the most part. Also, I was just correcting your reference to the Mark 16 passage to point out all of the verses in question.

Neal