-
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!
1 John 5:7-8
- Thread starter DesiderioDomini
- Start date
- Status
The crucial information is the date of the scribal note.
Sometimes they would correct the master copy from which they were copying.
For instance one of the marginal notes which adds the Comma is in a 10th century mss. If it was the hand of the original scribe it is very weighty.
However if it is a 16th century correction then it's not as good in terms of weight.
HankD
Sometimes they would correct the master copy from which they were copying.
For instance one of the marginal notes which adds the Comma is in a 10th century mss. If it was the hand of the original scribe it is very weighty.
However if it is a 16th century correction then it's not as good in terms of weight.
HankD
But he did write a book entitled De Libero Arbitrio (On the Freedom of the Will, 1524,)
in which he attacked Luther. So I don't think he was a member of the Reformation. The encyclopedia says that Erasmus found "religious" life distastful. So I guess I was wrong in saying he was "devoutly" Catholic but I still believe based on his own writings he was on the RC side of the fence.
in which he attacked Luther. So I don't think he was a member of the Reformation. The encyclopedia says that Erasmus found "religious" life distastful. So I guess I was wrong in saying he was "devoutly" Catholic but I still believe based on his own writings he was on the RC side of the fence.
DesiderioDomini
New Member
Eliyahu,
Please check your sources more carefully. I would not want to post from a site so well known for gross misinformation. There are so many errors in what you posted that it would take days to sort through them. I will not, I just ask you to use more reputable KJVO sources in the future.
Hank,
As for the comma, you say that God can preserve his word in any way he wants. But why did he fail to preserve his word for greek speaking people? They had NO ACCESS to this reading at all until the 13th century!
I have seen someone explain how the greek grammar works without the comma, and I will try to find that reference and post it here.
I found the following interesting.
Please check your sources more carefully. I would not want to post from a site so well known for gross misinformation. There are so many errors in what you posted that it would take days to sort through them. I will not, I just ask you to use more reputable KJVO sources in the future.
Hank,
As for the comma, you say that God can preserve his word in any way he wants. But why did he fail to preserve his word for greek speaking people? They had NO ACCESS to this reading at all until the 13th century!
I have seen someone explain how the greek grammar works without the comma, and I will try to find that reference and post it here.
I found the following interesting.
web page
Originally posted by DesiderioDomini:
[QB] Eliyahu, . There are so many errors in what you posted that it would take days to sort through them. I will not, I just ask you to use more reputable KJVO sources in the future.
1) Would you please be kind by pointing out just one or two errors in my posting so that I may improve?
2) Can anyone answer to the Internal Evidence because all the external evidences are controversial and difficult to prove?
The internal evidence is the most powerful as it doesn't stand without COMMA
[QB] Eliyahu, . There are so many errors in what you posted that it would take days to sort through them. I will not, I just ask you to use more reputable KJVO sources in the future.
1) Would you please be kind by pointing out just one or two errors in my posting so that I may improve?
2) Can anyone answer to the Internal Evidence because all the external evidences are controversial and difficult to prove?
The internal evidence is the most powerful as it doesn't stand without COMMA
Well DD, we are not absolutely sure of that. In the Jerome/Augustine letters concerning the translation of the Vulgate from the original language mss (late 4th century), one of them made note (and I don't remember which) that "some" of these mss had left out the Comma implying that others had not.
Did they actually exist and if so, where did they go? Well, who knows.
Book and library burnings have always been a popular pastime.
The Comma seems to have survived and been with us in one form or another from the earliest days.
HankD
His debate with Luther was over the subject of Calvinism. Luther was, Erasmus wasn't. His "On Freedom" was a response to Luther's "Bondage of the Will."
As to his being "on the RC side of the fence" here is what history has to say about him.
A Catholic writer, Hugh Pope, under an official Roman Catholic imprimatur and nihil obstat, says
And now, from his own words, regarding salvation:
Hope of Glory
New Member
The Catholics are pro-life as well. Should we reject that?
There are many errors coming from the Catholic church, and we should reject the errors. However to reject everything Catholic outright would be an error in itself. (There are many dogmatic Catholic ideas that have pervaded other denominations, including Baptist, that many people don't even know about.)
There are many errors coming from the Catholic church, and we should reject the errors. However to reject everything Catholic outright would be an error in itself. (There are many dogmatic Catholic ideas that have pervaded other denominations, including Baptist, that many people don't even know about.)
Can we summarize the evidences supporting COMMA as follows?
1)Manuscripts:
60, 61(16c), 88m(12c),110, 173, 221m(10c), 429(m 14c),618(16c), 629(14c),634, 635m(11c), 636m, 918, 2318(18c), 2473(17c)
We need to verify each of them as some of them have uncertainty about the time.
2)Antiquity :
Tertullian, Cyprian, Priscillian, and others,
One from Liber Apologeticus by Priscillian:
As John says "and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus."
3) Internal Evidence-Biblical Proof
Οτι τρεισ εισιν οι μαρτυρουντεσ (εν τω οθρανω ο Πατηρ ο Λογοσ και οθτοι οι τρεισ εν εισι 8 και τρεισ εισιν οι μαρτυρουντεσ εν τη γη) το Πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα, και οι τρεισ εισ το εν εισιν.
Without Bracket, we encounter the following problems:
3-A)v 7: οι μαρτυρουντεσ -->>τα μαρτυρουντεσ
3-Β)v 8: οι τρεισ -->> τα τρεισ
3-C)In addition, if anyone who insisted on Trinity had inserted COMMA, normally he would have included "Father, Son, Holy Spirit"but the COMMA has Word, which is typical style of John
The internal, Biblical proof is the most powerful evidence supporting COMMA.
I think W/H noted this problem also.
1)Manuscripts:
60, 61(16c), 88m(12c),110, 173, 221m(10c), 429(m 14c),618(16c), 629(14c),634, 635m(11c), 636m, 918, 2318(18c), 2473(17c)
We need to verify each of them as some of them have uncertainty about the time.
2)Antiquity :
Tertullian, Cyprian, Priscillian, and others,
One from Liber Apologeticus by Priscillian:
As John says "and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus."
3) Internal Evidence-Biblical Proof
Οτι τρεισ εισιν οι μαρτυρουντεσ (εν τω οθρανω ο Πατηρ ο Λογοσ και οθτοι οι τρεισ εν εισι 8 και τρεισ εισιν οι μαρτυρουντεσ εν τη γη) το Πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα, και οι τρεισ εισ το εν εισιν.
Without Bracket, we encounter the following problems:
3-A)v 7: οι μαρτυρουντεσ -->>τα μαρτυρουντεσ
3-Β)v 8: οι τρεισ -->> τα τρεισ
3-C)In addition, if anyone who insisted on Trinity had inserted COMMA, normally he would have included "Father, Son, Holy Spirit"but the COMMA has Word, which is typical style of John
The internal, Biblical proof is the most powerful evidence supporting COMMA.
I think W/H noted this problem also.
Dear D-D, please kindly accept this comment is not intended to hurt you.
The Web page you quote
(http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1186)
is very much full of groundless accusation against Erasmus. Erasmus is not such a wicked person intending the forgery of the Bible:
Daniel Wallace said
1) "COMMA is internally and externally against authenticity" however, he could not explain about the Internal Grammatical Problem without COMMA at all, which is the biggest and the most powerful witness because we have no other witness more powerful than Bible itself.
2) He accuse Erasmus of the forgery as "made to order", But the whole situation was this, he learned from Reformers and from Latin Bible preserved by the Waldenese, and many other true believers that Johannine Comma is included in the Bible but could not get the Greek texts and he was sure that Greek texts containing COMMA would exist somewhere, but could not include it until he actually obtain a Greek text even though he knew that thousands of Latin texts support it. Therefore he advertized that he would include it if he obtain a Greek text at the time when he published 1 and 2nd edition of TR. Even today if we are given the chance to publish the edition, we may not have the complete resources even though we have a certain conviction that a certain sentence should be included. In such case we can make a worldwide advertizement to seek the manuscripts.
3. Daniel misunderstand Erasmus as a Roman Catholic. Externally he was RC but actually he was a true believer, a protestant. This is a big misunderstanding by a Doctor!
4. Daniel mentions Erasmus included COMMA because of the pressure from Roman Catholic, but Daniel doesn't present any proof for that, while we believe Catholic listed his book in the list of forbidden books.
5. He could explain no single word at all for the grammatical problem without COMMA.
In addition to the above, there are some more inaccuracies, and if I were he, I would be very much ashamed about the Ph.D degree. I would be really ashamed about such accusation without knowledge.
Internal evidences are least arguable, minimum controversial evidences, because there can be many controversies about antiquity, authenticity of manuscripts, and about why they were deleted historically, such as because of Arianism, Eradication of Bible by RC, Sabellianism.
Again, Bible is the most powerful Evidence and Proof
[ December 07, 2005, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: Eliyahu ]
The Web page you quote
(http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1186)
is very much full of groundless accusation against Erasmus. Erasmus is not such a wicked person intending the forgery of the Bible:
Daniel Wallace said
1) "COMMA is internally and externally against authenticity" however, he could not explain about the Internal Grammatical Problem without COMMA at all, which is the biggest and the most powerful witness because we have no other witness more powerful than Bible itself.
2) He accuse Erasmus of the forgery as "made to order", But the whole situation was this, he learned from Reformers and from Latin Bible preserved by the Waldenese, and many other true believers that Johannine Comma is included in the Bible but could not get the Greek texts and he was sure that Greek texts containing COMMA would exist somewhere, but could not include it until he actually obtain a Greek text even though he knew that thousands of Latin texts support it. Therefore he advertized that he would include it if he obtain a Greek text at the time when he published 1 and 2nd edition of TR. Even today if we are given the chance to publish the edition, we may not have the complete resources even though we have a certain conviction that a certain sentence should be included. In such case we can make a worldwide advertizement to seek the manuscripts.
3. Daniel misunderstand Erasmus as a Roman Catholic. Externally he was RC but actually he was a true believer, a protestant. This is a big misunderstanding by a Doctor!
4. Daniel mentions Erasmus included COMMA because of the pressure from Roman Catholic, but Daniel doesn't present any proof for that, while we believe Catholic listed his book in the list of forbidden books.
5. He could explain no single word at all for the grammatical problem without COMMA.
In addition to the above, there are some more inaccuracies, and if I were he, I would be very much ashamed about the Ph.D degree. I would be really ashamed about such accusation without knowledge.
Internal evidences are least arguable, minimum controversial evidences, because there can be many controversies about antiquity, authenticity of manuscripts, and about why they were deleted historically, such as because of Arianism, Eradication of Bible by RC, Sabellianism.
Again, Bible is the most powerful Evidence and Proof
[ December 07, 2005, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: Eliyahu ]
Uh, 60 is a 14th century Byzantine manuscript which does not contain 1 John. It is a manuscript containing only the Book of the Revelation. It is now referred to as 2821.
61 is the 16th century manuscript that critics claim was produced to force Erasmus to include the comma in his Greek NT. The problem with that theory is that 61 contains the entire New Testament, all Byzantine except for Revelation, which is Alexandrian. It seems odd that an entire New Testament would be copied to force the inclusion of one phrase.
Well, not exactly. 88 is a 12th century manuscript of Acts, the Pauline Epistles including Hebrews, and the Revelation. The comma is not part of the original manuscript but was added, probably sometime in the 16th century judging by the orthography.
There is no evidence that 100 contains the comma.
There is no evidence 173 supports the comma.
The comma was added in a different hand and was not part of the original.
The comma was added, probably in the 16th century, by a later hand.
618, which is 12th century, not 16th, does not contain the comma.
629 is a Greek translation of the Latin Vulgate text it is parallel to.
634 does not contain the comma.
635 does not contain the comma.
636 is a 15th century manuscript with the comma added in a later hand.
918 is 16th century and contains the comma in the original hand.
2318 is an 18th century copy of James through Jude and was probably translated from the Latin Vulgate, or, if not, edited to agree with the Vulgate.
2473 does not contain the comma.
Thank you very much Dr. Cassidy. I think your posting is exactly the style in which we have to discuss on this thread.
My sources were from Dr. Holland and another KJVO site
1. http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_1jo5_7.html
QTE
It is contained in 629 (fourteenth century), 61 (sixteenth century), 918 (sixteenth century), 2473 (seventeenth century), and 2318 (eighteenth century). It is also in the margins of 221 (tenth century), 635 (eleventh century), 88 (twelveth century), 429 (fourteenth century), and 636 (fifteenth century). There are about five hundred existing manuscripts of 1 John chapter five that do not contain the Comma.
UQTE
2.http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/authenticityof.htm by Way of Life Literature,
P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061–0368.
1-866-295-4143 (toll free: USA & Canada),
519-652-2619 (voice), fbns@wayoflife.org (email)
Qte
The third consideration is THE MANUSCRIPT ARGUMENT. Carson states that there are only four MSS that contain this reading. He is wrong about the facts. The current UBSNT lists six MSS (61, 88mg, 429mg, 629, 636mg, and 918) containing the "Comma." Moreover, D.A. Waite cites evidence of some twenty MSS containing it (those confirmed are 61, 88mg, 629, 634mg, 636mg, omega 110, 429mg, 221, and 2318) along with two lectionaries (60, 173)
Uqte
3. 110 is denoted with omega, and 60 and 173 lectionaries. I heard somewhere.
From my survey on the manuscripts so far, I realized there are some more studies to be clarified still, because some reports say that the more mss may show COMMA.
4. Do you have any information about
Codex Wizanburgensis, as reported by Dabney which is said to be 8th century?
To me Bible itself is the basic structure and the others are supporting buttresses and therefore Grammatical explanation is basic.
My sources were from Dr. Holland and another KJVO site
1. http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_1jo5_7.html
QTE
It is contained in 629 (fourteenth century), 61 (sixteenth century), 918 (sixteenth century), 2473 (seventeenth century), and 2318 (eighteenth century). It is also in the margins of 221 (tenth century), 635 (eleventh century), 88 (twelveth century), 429 (fourteenth century), and 636 (fifteenth century). There are about five hundred existing manuscripts of 1 John chapter five that do not contain the Comma.
UQTE
2.http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/authenticityof.htm by Way of Life Literature,
P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061–0368.
1-866-295-4143 (toll free: USA & Canada),
519-652-2619 (voice), fbns@wayoflife.org (email)
Qte
The third consideration is THE MANUSCRIPT ARGUMENT. Carson states that there are only four MSS that contain this reading. He is wrong about the facts. The current UBSNT lists six MSS (61, 88mg, 429mg, 629, 636mg, and 918) containing the "Comma." Moreover, D.A. Waite cites evidence of some twenty MSS containing it (those confirmed are 61, 88mg, 629, 634mg, 636mg, omega 110, 429mg, 221, and 2318) along with two lectionaries (60, 173)
Uqte
3. 110 is denoted with omega, and 60 and 173 lectionaries. I heard somewhere.
From my survey on the manuscripts so far, I realized there are some more studies to be clarified still, because some reports say that the more mss may show COMMA.
4. Do you have any information about
Codex Wizanburgensis, as reported by Dabney which is said to be 8th century?
To me Bible itself is the basic structure and the others are supporting buttresses and therefore Grammatical explanation is basic.
DesiderioDomini
New Member
You claim he was not able to when he didnt even touch the issue. That is like me claiming you cant make a free throw while we are playing soccer. I do have an article which discusses this issue, as I explained in an earlier post, and I will post it soon. I am done with finals tomorrow, and I will find it.
Say what? I dont recall Erasums being blamed for any forgery of any kind. I think you have misunderstood. If he was so certain of its authenticity, why did he cast so much doubt on it in his "annotations"?
This is a big misunderstanding indeed. He was Roman Catholic. Not only protestants baptists are true believers, so I am not really sure what your point is. Any denial of the fact that he was a RC is illogical, as simply reading his works would show that much like many other RC, he doubted somethings that they taught, but he was far from agreeing with Luther or any other protestants.
I dont understand why proof is needed. No proof is needed for the conjecture of how the comma disappeared from the greek texts, nearly all greek texts, so why is proof now necessary for something?
The reason Wallace doesnt present proof in this article is the same reason why I wouldnt present proof for what day it is. It simply isnt under dispute.
I believe you said this already. It seems rather important to you, so I will keep my word, and be sure I find that article this weekend.
Not sure why you said this, but I dont think he is!
Respectfully, this is why I get kinda bored with these discussions. You have just above argued that since no proof was provided, that you feel his statement was reckless. You have just claimed that this reading was deleted, which you have zero proof of. The best you have is a quote of this verse in 380, thousands of latin copies, and absolutely no record of this reading in the greek without help from the Latin (such as a manuscript translated from the latin into greek, or an interlinear greek/latin) until AT BEST the 14th century. I must say that I cannot understand how this does not cause concern for those who accept the reading. Why would we teach what we do about catholics, yet owe this reading almost entirely to them? How can they be trusted to be the keepers of this reading?
What happened to the greek copies so that none of them retained this reading?
I was disturbed that all those manuscripts were claimed to have the comma, yet most of that was bogus. It kind of seems that sometimes people are willing to do anything to defend their beliefs, even if the facts do not.
DesiderioDomini
New Member
Why did you post this? You said that these are "confirmed" yet Cassidy just showed that most of them DO NOT contain the comma, or if they do, it was added by a later hand, which means it was almost certainly added from a latin manuscript.
This means the greek support for this reading is still down to a handful of very late manuscripts.
I must ask why you claimed this was "confirmed" when it is in fact untrue.
D-d,
1) Did I say they were confirmed? I said "Can we summarize.." then we need to verify these...
The reason why I posted the exerpts of article was because my points may look groundless after Cassidy commented.
2) I wish everyone will read thru Daniel Wallace article then comment. Indeed it is groundless accusation. One simple example is that He was RC even though his actual belief and understanding was so different from RC as per my posting before and as per Cassidy too. Then He says RC forced to insert COMMA.
3) Some of the comments by Cassidy still need verification because the people who support COMMA can have different opinion still on the timing of margins.
4) At the end there will be endless controversy on the authenticity of mss, antiquity, history, etc. Therefore Grammatical evidence is the most powerful and least controversial evidence, I believe. So far I have seen nobody explains against COMMA grammatically. I will be very much pleased to see it!
1) Did I say they were confirmed? I said "Can we summarize.." then we need to verify these...
The reason why I posted the exerpts of article was because my points may look groundless after Cassidy commented.
2) I wish everyone will read thru Daniel Wallace article then comment. Indeed it is groundless accusation. One simple example is that He was RC even though his actual belief and understanding was so different from RC as per my posting before and as per Cassidy too. Then He says RC forced to insert COMMA.
3) Some of the comments by Cassidy still need verification because the people who support COMMA can have different opinion still on the timing of margins.
4) At the end there will be endless controversy on the authenticity of mss, antiquity, history, etc. Therefore Grammatical evidence is the most powerful and least controversial evidence, I believe. So far I have seen nobody explains against COMMA grammatically. I will be very much pleased to see it!
DesiderioDomini
New Member
well, praise God, I just finished my last final (at 1 am, it was a take home final) so Ill have time to find it.
If I misunderstood, then I apologize, but it sure seemed like you were claiming they had been "confirmed". That troubled me, but it seems there was a mixup.
I do wish to discuss the gramatical issue, but I wish to ask you first:
Even if there is a gramatical error without the comma, how does that show that the comma as taken from the Latin is correct? isnt it just as likely that there was another reading here?
If I misunderstood, then I apologize, but it sure seemed like you were claiming they had been "confirmed". That troubled me, but it seems there was a mixup.
I do wish to discuss the gramatical issue, but I wish to ask you first:
Even if there is a gramatical error without the comma, how does that show that the comma as taken from the Latin is correct? isnt it just as likely that there was another reading here?
I will be very much plaesed to see the annswer which proves that COMMA is wrong grammatically or disproves that COMMA is rightly in place of the bible.
The logic from COMMA supporters is very clear:
1) they (male plural)in verse 8 has no ground as the previous words (spirit, water, blood are all neutral) are all neutral, without COMMA. It should have been they (neutral plural).
Therefore we can confirm definitely that there is a grammatical error, without COMMA.
This kind of grammatical error can be found nowhere in NT.
2) In order to trace such grammatical error, we can expect there was something before those three,then we have the clue from COMMA as it has all masculine nouns and then furthermore, they were represented by οι τρεισ (those three)(those: masculine plural)those masculine plural are in one:
The exactly right word is in the right place where it should be!
3) The contents of the COMMA is the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, which is the typical style of John, not the style of trinitarian because if any Trinitarian inserted it, they would have inserted Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
I think no one has dared to call the Son as Word, except John who learned it from Holy Spirit.
Based on this powerful logic and proof, all the historical explanation is understandable about why they were missing, considering Arianism, thousands of modification in other parts of NT, eradication of Bible by RC, Sabellianism in eastern europe, then quotations by other ancient writers. Moreover it has been preserved in Latin kept by Waldenese who were the true believers even during RC persecuted and eradicated bibles. We can conclude that there are more than enough and sufficient proof for COMMA.
The number of the manuscripts can be an important criteria in judging the genuineness of the texts.However, when we had some sufficient reasons for the disappearance of COMMA, we have to re-consider it and the people who support MV, they interpret Mt11:19 as Wisdom can be justified by her works (not of her children as KJV), even though all the rest of the mt texts support KJV, there are only 2 manuscripts supporting it.
[ December 08, 2005, 07:30 AM: Message edited by: Eliyahu ]
The logic from COMMA supporters is very clear:
1) they (male plural)in verse 8 has no ground as the previous words (spirit, water, blood are all neutral) are all neutral, without COMMA. It should have been they (neutral plural).
Therefore we can confirm definitely that there is a grammatical error, without COMMA.
This kind of grammatical error can be found nowhere in NT.
2) In order to trace such grammatical error, we can expect there was something before those three,then we have the clue from COMMA as it has all masculine nouns and then furthermore, they were represented by οι τρεισ (those three)(those: masculine plural)those masculine plural are in one:
The exactly right word is in the right place where it should be!
3) The contents of the COMMA is the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, which is the typical style of John, not the style of trinitarian because if any Trinitarian inserted it, they would have inserted Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
I think no one has dared to call the Son as Word, except John who learned it from Holy Spirit.
Based on this powerful logic and proof, all the historical explanation is understandable about why they were missing, considering Arianism, thousands of modification in other parts of NT, eradication of Bible by RC, Sabellianism in eastern europe, then quotations by other ancient writers. Moreover it has been preserved in Latin kept by Waldenese who were the true believers even during RC persecuted and eradicated bibles. We can conclude that there are more than enough and sufficient proof for COMMA.
The number of the manuscripts can be an important criteria in judging the genuineness of the texts.However, when we had some sufficient reasons for the disappearance of COMMA, we have to re-consider it and the people who support MV, they interpret Mt11:19 as Wisdom can be justified by her works (not of her children as KJV), even though all the rest of the mt texts support KJV, there are only 2 manuscripts supporting it.
[ December 08, 2005, 07:30 AM: Message edited by: Eliyahu ]
- Status