1 John 5:7-8

[DesiderioDomini]

Hank, I respectfully disagree.

Other church fathers are also known to have quoted the Comma. Although some have questioned if Cyprian (258 AD) knew of the Comma, his citation certainly suggests that he did. He writes: "The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one' and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one'." [4]

All manuscripts say "these 3 are in agreement". Dont you think that it rather interesting that this quote is dubious at best, and its the ONLY one that we know of? Why is this the only one, and why isnt it even a full quote? It seems to be piecing together several different verses to me.

The other quotes are not contested, but come MUCH later. I believe that it is generaly understood that the first mention of this reading is 380 or so, since the cyprian reading is very inconclusive. I stipulate that it is possible he is quoting it, but even Holland is admitting it is possible that he isnt.

I have seen this quote before, and if I had more time (I have a killer final tomorrow at 11) then I would find some more info, but I dont think that Hollands analysis of the grammar issue is entirely correct.

Good discussion, however.

One question was never answered. If we believe that this reading is authentic, dont we have to accept that a reading can disappear from its original language completely? Is that not troubling?

 

[HankD]

One question was never answered. If we believe that this reading is authentic, dont we have to accept that a reading can disappear from its original language completely? Is that not troubling?

No.

HankD

 

[Hope of Glory]

Hmm... that's something I hadn't thought about. We have records about many things that were added, but how many records do we have about things that were omitted?

 

[DesiderioDomini]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One question was never answered. If we believe that this reading is authentic, dont we have to accept that a reading can disappear from its original language completely? Is that not troubling?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No.

I dont understand how Hank. What greek record is there of this reading? Did it not disappear from its original language? Isnt the only reason we have it because it is contained in the Latin, which is surely not what language John wrote it in?

 

[DesiderioDomini]

Hmm... that's something I hadn't thought about. We have records about many things that were added, but how many records do we have about things that were omitted?

Dont you think thats kind of an invalid question? If we had a record of things ommitted, then we would know something else is needed, and we would be looking for it. If we are unaware, then how could there be a record of it?

Seems like the same claim mormons make, "somethings missing" but we dont really have any evidence to prove it. Without something tangible that says "there used to be 40 chapters, now there are only 37", I dont think we can entertain such a notion.

 

[Hope of Glory]

If, for example, we had a second century manuscript with a passage, and that passage disappeared in subsequent manuscripts, this would be a record of something being omitted. (Not necessarily an accurate record; that decision would have to be made based on other factors.) Do we have any such records from ancient manuscripts? It's a valid question.

We have many where things are added to subsequent manuscripts and some of them are easy to trace.

 

[DesiderioDomini]

OK I understand. I thought you were meaning things that have been removed that we dont know of.

As to my understanding, things being removed is quite rare. I believe any knowledgable scholar would say that usually things are added in, rather than ommitted

 

[Eliyahu]

I believe 1John5:7 (Johannine comma) is the genuine part of the true bible.
Facts are:
1) Manuscripts disappeared because RCC destroyed the bible, in Western Europe.
2) Arianism, Perversion in the Alexandrian texts caused the disappearance of it
3) Eastern Europe had the problem with Sabellianism (Modalism). This is meaningful because majority texts are heavily depending on Byzantine texts.

4) Tertullian, Cyprian, Athanasius referred to this

5) The most powerful evidence comes from Bible itself (internal evidence) : If the Johannine comma didn't exist, how can verse 8 have "hoi" as it is for masculine while the previous words are all neutral. I have never encountered any person who clearly explain this article (hoi) while rejecting Johannine comma. Can anyone here explain this grammatical problem while rejecting "comma"?


Some of my favorite sites are :

1) http://www.believeonjesus.com/articles/drdavidbrown/JohannineComma.asp

2) http://www.1john57.com/jcindex.htm

3) http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/1john57.htm (even though author is anonymous)

 

[nate]

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
I believe 1John5:7 (Johannine comma) is the genuine part of the true bible.
Facts are:
1) Manuscripts disappeared because RCC destroyed the bible, in Western Europe.

If this is the case then why did the RC church make Erasmus put it in his 3rd edition of the TR? This arguement has no historical support. If the RC wanted to get rid of it how come it is in most of the Vulgate texts.

Arianism, Perversion in the Alexandrian texts caused the disappearance of it

Now that's a consipiracy theory. And not a very good one at that. Again there was no cult in Alexandria.

3)Eastern Europe had the problem with Sabellianism (Modalism). This is meaningful because majority texts are heavily depending on Byzantine texts.

Well even the Majority texts do not have 1 John 5:7-8. Nor do really any Byzantine texts. You have to go to the Old Latin which was the language of the church you are accusing of trying to get rid of the Comma.

4) Tertullian, Cyprian, Athanasius referred to this

As DD pointed out already we're not exactly sure they were quoting 1 John 5:7-8.

 

[DesiderioDomini]

Eliyahu,

Why are you accusing the RC Church of trying to rid us of this reading? Without that church, and its pet version, this reading would have ALMOST ZERO manuscript evidence.

There are many other readings which are in the KJV that are supported MAINLY by the Vulgate.

How can you claim these conspiracies with the evidence you have?

Dont you think there is just as much evidence, if not MORE, that the TR/KJV writters and translators sought to add to God's word by making it more pious?

The majority of the evidence for this reading is contained to "its in the KJV". As such, it MUST have been removed at some time by alexandrian manuscripts.

Thing is, there are several readings in the CT which have tons more manuscript evidence than this one. Why is this one correct and those not?

 

[Eliyahu]

1) Did RC make Erasmus put "comma" in 3rd edition? He remained as RC but actually his fellowship was with reformers. Do you believe RC prohibited Bible since The Council of Toulouse, which met in November of 1229 until it was officially allowed in the second Vatican Council?

If not, it can be a problem understanding and underlying this disagreement.

2) I have checked NT quite well and in so many verses, Alexandrian texts lost the ground. Do you believe that Jn 8:1-11 is not part of Bible? What about Mark 16:12-20 ?
Do you approve 1Ti 3:16 theos not hos?
If I ask several questions I can discern wherefrom the misunderstandings came from.

3)I mentioned the reason why Majority do not have the COMMA was because of the Sabellianism. Old Latin containing COMMA was mostly preserved by Waldenese, Albigenes as far as I know. We owe nothing to RCC.

4) In case of Tertullian, yes. you can say so.
But in case of Cyprian and Athanasius, they are quite in detail.

Why don't you answer about the most powerful evidence: internal proof?

I asked this because 1)-4) are quite difficult to prove or disprove, but the internal proof still exist there!

 

[nate]

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
1) Did RC make Erasmus put "comma" in 3rd edition? He remained as RC but actually his fellowship was with reformers. Do you believe RC prohibited Bible since The Council of Toulouse, which met in November of 1229 until it was officially allowed in the second Vatican Council?

No! He was devoutly Catholic and held to every single dogma of the RC church. Yes I believe that the Toulouse Council of 1229 prohibited the Bible from being given to the lay people but what does this have to do with 1 John 5:7-8? Erasmus wrote a book entitled De Libero Arbitrio (On the Freedom of the Will, 1524,) that is considered by the Encyclopedia to be "a brilliant attack on Luther".

I mentioned the reason why Majority do not have the COMMA was because of the Sabellianism. Old Latin containing COMMA was mostly preserved by Waldenese, Albigenes as far as I know. We owe nothing to RCC.

But the RC vulgate does include this reading! So they did not try and destroy it.

4) In case of Tertullian, yes. you can say so.
But in case of Cyprian and Athanasius, they are quite in detail.

Now your arguement contradicts itself because you have claimed that the Alexandrian text is bad yet Athanasius was the Bishop of Alexandria. And one of the leaders at the Council of Nicea against Arainism led a cult that wanted to destroy Christ's deity and delete a sure fire verse for the Trinity?

Why don't you answer about the most powerful evidence: internal proof?
I asked this because 1)-4) are quite difficult to prove or disprove, but the internal proof still exist there!

Becuase I do not know Greek

 

[Eliyahu]

1. Erasmus was a Catholic but his friends were the reformers: The following is from www.chick.com
************
Did Erasmus' contemporaries believe he was a Catholic?

The following are quotes from various researchers:

"In the midst of the group of Protestant scholars who had long been his truest friends, and so far as is known, without relations of any sort with the Roman Catholic Church, he died." 1

"He died at Basel in 1536, committed to neither party, but amid an admiring circle of friends who were all on the , Reformed side."2

[He was an] "ex monk ?a Protestant pastor preached his funeral sermon and the money that he left was used to , help Protestant refugees."3

"In 1559 Pope Paul IV 'placed everything Erasmus had ever written , on The Index of Forbidden Books."4

"[H]e was branded an impious heretic, and his works were forbidden , to Catholic readers" 5

"The Council of Trent , condemned Erasmus' translation"6 of the Bible. It is clear that his Bible was not a perverted Roman Catholic Vulgate translation at all.

In 1527, Spanish "monks of the Inquisition began a systematic scrutiny of Erasmus' works, with a view to having [Erasmus] condemned , as a heretic."7
*********************
I can understand why Erasmus had to live that way under the Catholic dominant society.

2. Yes, RC Latin contain COMMA too but RC had the authority to preserve the Bible even according to Council of Toulouse, because it declared the Pope and his agents can possess the bible. The point here is that Bible was difficult to be preserved in Western Europe. So, some critics say that Majority is not Majority but the majority of Byzantine texts or just Byzantine texts. In other words, we can not find so many texts supporting Majority in the region of RC area and Majority depends on Eastern Europe area which was troubled with Sabellianism.

3. The job of Manipulation was done mostly by Origen not by Athanasius. Even though Athanasius was related to the Catholicism, he was not involved in there.

4. May I explain the internal evidence as follows:
Greek articles have the gender, male female, neutral for singular and plural both.
Now verse 8 says : the spirit, the water, the blood: all three words are neutral which can be represented by it, it, it, but these is "male-he's" This kind of foolish grammar error never happened throughout the Bible! because it has to be" ït's " So, these should have been written in Greek as "ta"instead of "oi"(pronunciation is hoi)
However, if we include the COMMA, then it becomes perfect:
Ο Πατηρ, Ο Λογοσ, και το Αγιον Πνευμα = the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit.
Here Father is male, Logos is male, Holy Spirit is male because:
Spirit itself is neutral which is claimed by Jehova's Witness people, and because the Greek grammar is to classify it as neutral. But when it is combined with Hagion( Holy) it becomes male as we see in Jn 16:13, 14 where we see ekeinos instead of ekeino (neutral) in addition to Ho Parakleitos (the comforter) in JN 15:26. In order to disprove Holy Spirit is a Person and to prove Holy Spirit is just a kind of energy, Jehova's witness should claim that Bible is not written grammatically. However, the more we study Bible, the more we are astonished at the accuracy of the grammar used in Bible.
Therefore 1Jn 5:8 they should be understood as representing Father, Word, Holy Spirit, not the spirit, water, blood.

I have never met anyone who explain against this proof.

 

[HankD]

DD asks if it is disturbing that the Johannine Comma is missing from almost all Greek mss (it is found in 8 late Greek mss: 61, 88, 221, 429, 629, 636, 918, 2318 (4 in the text, 4 in the margin).

I said no it is not disturbing.

Why not?
Whether the Johannine Comma is apostolic or not God is still God.

Yes it requires that I believe that God can preserve Scripture in any language He wants.

Also, The Comma has persistently found it's way into the Traditional Text.

No. I'm not Vulgate Only (or any "Only" for that matter)

In fact it was preserved in a few Old Itala translations and from there found it's way into the Vulgate although most published editions of the Vulgate now remove it.

Here is a read (some of the citations are KJVO):

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/1john57-exegesis.htm

HankD

 

[nate]

One point to remeber about 61 was the fact it was written by a Catholic cardinal just so Erasmus would have a Greek text that included the Comma. So there is only really 3 Greek mss that include the Comma in the actual text.

 

[HankD]

I've heard that before nate and it could very well be.

Is there any historic evidence that you know of that verifies this?

Also nate, a marginal note is not without weight because a scribe is indicating by the marginal note that something is missing which he has seen in other mss.

HankD

 

[nate]

I read some article by a RC scholar.He was defending the TR but making a case the Erasmus should not have included the Comma. But not really no. I do not have historical evidence.

 

[HankD]

OK I've seen the same.

Please read my previous note because I added to it.

HankD

 

[nate]

I do believe the date of the mss was around 1520. That could be just coincidence or it could be that the story is true. Who knows?

 

[nate]

Originally posted by HankD:
Also nate, a marginal note is not without weight because a scribe is indicating by the marginal note that something is missing which he has seen in other mss.
HankD

True!