1 John 5:7-8

[TCassidy]

When we examine the comma using the historic rules of textual criticism, number, age, historicity, geography, agreement, credibility, and internal considerations of context, we come to an informed conclusion.

1. Age. The reading seems to be of ancient origin, appearing in De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate by Cyprian in about 250 AD.

2. Number. The vast majority of Greek manuscripts lack the reading.

3. Historicity. Mixed results. The RCC historically accepted the reading, the Byzantine Catholic church did not. Most of the dissenting churches, which, for the most part, relied on the Old Latin or other ancient vernaculars, accept the reading.

4. Geography. Again, mixed. The reading is found in Western type textforms, and in a mere handful of Byzantine manuscripts, but is missing from most Byzantine and all Alexandrian manuscripts.

5. Agreement. Mixed, again. There are more Byzantine manuscripts of 1 John lacking the reading than having it, but the number of manuscripts of 1 John is very small.

6. Credibility. The Patristic quotes are from the most credible sources cited, but the intent of the cites has been drawn into question.

7. Internal considerations. The argument from Greek grammar is very telling and a strong indicator of the canonicity of the reading.

My conclusion is that it is probably part of the original canon, dropped out of most of the manuscript evidence for whatever reason, but was preserved in a minority reading, as well as the Latin. As the inclusion of the comma does not contradict any other readings of the NT, and does not introduce a doctrinal error, even if it is spurious (which it may be) its presence is innocuous.

 

[nate]

Originally posted by TCassidy:
3. Historicity. Mixed results. The RCC historically accepted the reading, the Byzantine Catholic church did not. Most of the dissenting churches, which, for the most part, relied on the Old Latin or other ancient vernaculars, accept the reading.

I'm just curious are you refering to the Eastern Orthodox Church when you mention the Byzantine Catholic church?

7. Internal considerations. The argument from Greek grammar is very telling and a strong indicator of the canonicity of the reading.

Can you explain this to someone who doesn't know Greek I know E. has asked and I'm just wondering what internal evidence makes the comma appear to be cannon?

My conclusion is that it is probably part of the original canon, dropped out of most of the manuscript evidence for whatever reason, but was preserved in a minority reading, as well as the Latin. As the inclusion of the comma does not contradict any other readings of the NT, and does not introduce a doctrinal error, even if it is spurious (which it may be) its presence is innocuous.

The only problem with this verse(s) I have is if they are cannon what might we have lost if this verse almost disappeared from the Greek what else might not have been preserved by the RCC and in other language mss?

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by nate:
I'm just curious are you refering to the Eastern Orthodox Church when you mention the Byzantine Catholic church?

Yes.

Can you explain this to someone who doesn't know Greek I know E. has asked and I'm just wondering what internal evidence makes the comma appear to be cannon?

There is a gender discordance between the articles and the nouns if the comma is omitted from the passage. There are three neuter nouns (Spirit, water, and blood). Those neuter nouns are followed by a participle that is masculine (oi marturountes - who bare witness). This is poor grammar without the comma. Even more noticeably, verse six has the same participle in the neuter (to marturoun). Why are three neuter nouns supported with a masculine participle? The answer is found only in verse seven. There are two masculine nouns (Father and Son) followed by a neuter noun (Spirit). This verse also has the masculine participle (oi marturountes). With this clause introducing verse eight, it is proper for the participle in verse eight to be masculine, because of the masculine nouns in verse seven. But if verse seven were not there it would be an error in Greek grammar.

The only problem with this verse(s) I have is if they are cannon what might we have lost if this verse almost disappeared from the Greek what else might not have been preserved by the RCC and in other language mss?

The point is that it was not lost. We still have it.

 

[Eliyahu]

Dr.Cassidy, you are right in v 6. I thought about v 6 too but missed it. thanks.

 

[nate]

Originally posted by TCassidy:
There is a gender discordance between the articles and the nouns if the comma is omitted from the passage. There are three neuter nouns (Spirit, water, and blood). Those neuter nouns are followed by a participle that is masculine (oi marturountes - who bare witness). This is poor grammar without the comma. Even more noticeably, verse six has the same participle in the neuter (to marturoun). Why are three neuter nouns supported with a masculine participle? The answer is found only in verse seven. There are two masculine nouns (Father and Son) followed by a neuter noun (Spirit). This verse also has the masculine participle (oi marturountes). With this clause introducing verse eight, it is proper for the participle in verse eight to be masculine, because of the masculine nouns in verse seven. But if verse seven were not there it would be an error in Greek grammar.

Thanks I see what you mean now. Not sure I agree but I understand what you are saying.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by nate:
Thanks I see what you mean now. Not sure I agree but I understand what you are saying.

What do you disagree with? Are you saying the gender of the words as I posted them is incorrect? Or that the rule of grammar that says gender must agree is wrong? What is it you are not sure you agree with?

 

[DesiderioDomini]

I agree that there possibly a grammar problem, but I dont think that warrants inclusion of the Comma.

You said the point wasnt that it was lost because we still have it. Yet it is lost from its original language, because every greek manuscript which has the reading is in serious doubt.

I think it is clear that claiming Cyprian was quoting the comma is a guess, and is not evidence. The first true quote of it is 380.

I still wish to know how a reading can disappear from its original language, and yet we are supposed to trust the greek texts when they agree with the TR?

I truely do not understand that position

 

[DesiderioDomini]

First off, I wondered why the passage wasnt included by Jerome. Here is why:

As regards transcriptional probability, if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.

(2) As regards intrinsic probability, the passage makes an awkward break in the sense.

web page

The phrase in verse 8, to pneuma, kai to udor, kai to aima (the Spirit, and the water, and the blood), are all neuter nouns. They are, however, contiguous with the phrase, oi marturountes (who bare witness) which stands in the masculine (as does the Greek word for three, treis).

Neuter nouns normally require neuter articles (the word "the" as in "the blood" is the article). But the article in verse 8 of the shortened reading as found in the Greek that is the foundation of the new versions…is masculine.Thus the new translations read "the Spirit (neuter), the water (neuter), and the blood (neuter): and these three (masculine!! - from the Greek article "hoi") are in one."

In other words, the three neuter nouns (spirit, water, and blood) are referred to as three--in masculine gender-- because they refer back to the MASCULINE oi marturountes (who bare witness) in the first part of the verse:

There are three who bear witness(masculine) in earth, the spirit (neuter) and the water (neuter) and the blood (neuter) and these three (masculine) are one.

Thus there is no need for the addition of Father, Word, and Holy Ghost into the verse in order to be correct grammatically.

I do not have the link anymore, so take it at face value.

The words of Jerome himself in bold underlined italic print below:

Of the earliest translators of the Bible into Latin no record has survived. Notwithstanding the careful investigations of scholars in recent years, there are still many questions relating to the origin of the Latin Bible to which only tentative and provisional answers can be given. It is therefore more convenient to begin a study of its history with Jerome toward the close of the 4th century and the commission entrusted to him by Pope Damasus to produce a standard Latin version, the execution of which gave to Christendom the Vulgate. The need for such a version was clamant. There existed by this time a multiplicity of translations differing from one another, and there was none possessed of commanding authority to which appeal might be made in case of necessity. It was the consideration of the chaotic condition of the existing translations, with their divergences and variations, which moved Damasus to commission Jerome to his task and Jerome to undertake it.

We learn particulars from the letter of Jerome in 383 transmitting to his patron the first installment of his revision, the Gospels. "Thou compellest me," he writes, "to make a new work out of an old so that after so many copies of the Scriptures have been dispersed throughout the whole world I am as it were to occupy the post of arbiter, and seeing they differ from one another am to determine which of them are in agreement with the original Greek." Anticipating attacks from critics, he says, further: "If they maintain that confidence is to be reposed in the Latin exemplars, let them answer which, for there are almost as many copies of translations as manuscripts. But if the truth is to be sought from the majority, why not rather go back to the Greek original, and correct the blunders which have been made by incompetent translators, made worse rather than better by the presumption of unskillful correctors, and added to or altered by careless scribes?"

THE OLD LATIN VERSION
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1915)


Jerome went back to the Greek original manuscripts that were available to him and DID NOT FIND 1John 5:7 as it now reads in the KJV!

The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied a.d. 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before a.d. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).

I had all this saved on my desktop, and I found some of it (the link I provide) but I dont know where the rest of it came from. If there are some errors, let the greek majors set it straight.

 

[TCassidy]

Originally posted by DesiderioDomini:
Yet it is lost from its original language, because every greek manuscript which has the reading is in serious doubt.

That is not only an over statement, it is entirely subjective.

I still wish to know how a reading can disappear from its original language, and yet we are supposed to trust the greek texts when they agree with the TR?

Simple. It didn't disappear. If it had, we would not be having this discussion.

 

[DesiderioDomini]

TCass,

Which greek manuscripts contain the comma in their text (not margins)?

How many of these are not parallel with Latin?

How many more are not translated from a latin manuscript?

In all, how many greek manuscripts do we have that even have a claim of getting this reading from an earlier greek manuscript?

Notice, I did not say it "disappeared", but it that it disappeared from its original language. I am aware that the Latin copies contain it quite extensively.

 

[nate]

Originally posted by TCassidy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by nate:
Thanks I see what you mean now. Not sure I agree but I understand what you are saying.

What do you disagree with? Are you saying the gender of the words as I posted them is incorrect? Or that the rule of grammar that says gender must agree is wrong? What is it you are not sure you agree with? </font>[/QUOTE]I don't agree with your belief that the comma is Cannon. No I agree completely with what you said about the Greek word ordering. How could I disagree with that.

Since I don't know Greek. I just do not believe the comma is original. Although I would say the only thing even standing in it's favor would be the Greek wording.

 

[Eliyahu]

Dear Cassidy, can you help us have some better D-base or archive for Texts? because I know only the data for the limited number of texts organized poorly.
Another thing is whether you heard about the latest discovery on COMMA which might happen in Dublin.

I think you are right in mentioning Cyprian first because we can hardly disconnect between COMMA and his writing seeing IN THE HEAVEN..... IN THE EARTH....., where can anyone get such combination?
We can hardly think about Cyprian's writing without believing that he knew this from COMMA.

 

[Steven Avery]

[snipped - non Baptist posting in Baptist Only forum]

[ January 03, 2006, 12:31 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

[Steven Avery]

{snipped - non Baptist]

[ January 03, 2006, 12:32 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

[nate]

The point is mute though the fact remains that the TR is a poorly copied translation based on 12 late late manuscripts.

 

[Eliyahu]

If RC didn't persecute the reading Bibles and didn't eradicate the Bible, there would be a lot more of Ancient manuscripts supporting TR having Johannine COMMA.
Now RC has changed its tactics. I wonder why RC who claims infallible all the time doesn't continue its policy prohibiting the Bible reading.

Bible itself is the most powerful witness that there is something wrong very clearly, without COMMA.
Nobody has explained about it yet.

 

[Steven Avery]

[non-Baptist]

[ January 03, 2006, 12:35 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Steven Avery:
And what do you think about a Greek text that simply proof-texted TWO manuscripts, that in fact were not even homogeneous with each other, much less yet hundreds of other manuscripts ?

I always thought that over 5000 manuscripts were available for examination today. Is that an exaggeration by over 2500 times or is it the truth?

I have noticed that the KJV and NIV agree in Amos 4:4 but not the LXX and MT. Does that make the KJV like the NIV? Did the KJV use the same eclectic text?

 

[gb93433]

Steven Avery:

You should learn more about how Jesus debated and how he dealt with people. You might be more convincing if you did.

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by gb93433:
I have noticed that the KJV and NIV agree in Amos 4:4 but not the LXX and MT. Does that make the KJV like the NIV? Did the KJV use the same eclectic text? [/QB]

YOu have another thread for Amos 4:4 where you could not refute anymore,I think. Please don't bring that issue here unless you want to bring the whole posts of Amos 4:4 from there.

Please note this is the thread for Johannine COMMA . This is how to run the debate effectively.