1John 5:7

Actually, the Johannine Comma exists in 8 Greek manuscripts in one form or another (as a correction, marginally or in the text itself):

Found online in the public domain at :
http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html

It also has a strong witness by Latin texts and fathers:

Found online in the public domain at:
http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_1jo5_7.html

Although I am not KJVO here is an exhaustive study (admittedly by an "Only" person):
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/1john572.htm


HankD

 

HankD: "Actually, the Johannine Comma exists in 8 Greek manuscripts in one form or another (as a correction, marginally or in the text itself):

Make that 9 Greek MSS. Add to the group MS 2473, a seventeenth-century manuscript in the National Library at Athens.

Sources: Text und Textwert; Kurzgefasste Liste der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments.

Thomas Holland source: "Although some doubt if the Comma was a part of Jerome's original Vulgate, the evidence suggests that it was."

As usual, reliance upon a TR/KJVO source causes misinformed confusion. Holland's assessment does *NOT* agree with the scholarly reconstruction of Jerome's Vulgate as made by B. Fischer, J. Gribomont, H. F. D. Sparks, and W. Thiele, Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem (Stuttgart, 1969), which reads verses 7-8 only as "quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant, Spiritus et aqua et sanguis et tres unum sunt."

 

Byzantine primacy usually refers to the Consensus (or Majority) of all Greek MSS, and never relies on a handful against all others (contra your position, Dr. Bob).

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

DrBob: "for folks who are HYPER about Byzantine primacy of texts, it is missing. Hmmmm."

Rephrase to "folks who are hyper about TR/KJV primacy". The Byzantine MSS do *NOT* contain the Johannine Comma (see the Hodges-Farstad Majority Text edition or the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Textform edition).

 

FWIW I personally am not hyper about any text.
I have a strong preference towards the TR (Scrivener 1894) which technically is not exactly synonymous with the Byzantine Majority Text as Ziggy has pointed out.

It is much closer to the Byzantine than the critical text and can be included as a member in the general camp of the Byzantine type.

NT scholarship and TC has swung away from the Byzantine type as to primacy to the so-called Alexandrian texts with a biased fixation (IMO) on two texts: Aleph and B.

Personally, I do not subscribe willy-nilly to the W&H general theories (shorter reading better, more difficult better, Aleph/B best, Byzantine conflation, etc.)

Personally my preference is to remain in the Byzantine type camp for textual authority.

The Comma would obviously be an exception on my part although it does appear in the Scrivener 1894/5 and Stephanus 1550 Greek NT.

HankD

 

"willy-nilly" Sorry. What I meant was to be appled to the sometime process of selection which honestly seems to be "willy-nilly" with W&H sometimes choosing a reading which is supported by Aleph and/or B only.

Which also means that I don't completely discount the theories of the scholarly Wescott and Hort (especially Hort) who gave Burgon a "run for his money", just the blind pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey Aleph/B selection above the entire scope of historical witnesses.

I myself would never do a thing like that with the TR .

OK but I didn't mention Nestle Aland just W&H in my previous post.

HankD

 

DrBob: "What do you suppose that catholic humanist 'Rasmus used as "rules"?"

One rule 'Rasmus used for sure was to exclude 1Jn 5:7 from his original first two editions, based on its lack in the Greek MSS available to him. He only bent on that (reasonable) "rule" when those nice people from the Inquisition raised questions about his Trinitarian orthodoxy.....

DrBob: "the blend that would become the Stephanus and then morph to the TR and again to the Majority Text."

This is somewhat backward. The "blend" derived from the Byzantine or majority text and resulted in the TR (whichever variety, including Stephens, Beza, Elzevir, or Scrivener).

 

I would add that quoting Thomas Holland in support of the comma johaneum is almost like quoting Peter Ruckman. Here is a more extensive discussion/refutation of Holland’s claims re ECF and Latin support for the comma.

http://www.revneal.org/latmandebate.html

Michael Maynard has published what is probably the most extensive attempt to support the comma and it falls way short of it’s mark.

1] The evidence in the Greek manuscripts.

The passage appears in only four Greek manuscripts.

Greg 88: A 12th cent. manuscript in which the passage is written in the margin in a 17th cent. hand.

Greg 629. A manuscript variously dated as from the 14th to the 16th cent.

Tisch 110: A manuscript copy, dating from the 16th cent, of the Greek text from the Complutensian Polyglot[*].

ms 61: Which, as we've seen, shows every indication of being created expressly in order to supply a justification for the inclusion of this passage in Erasmus' Greek NT.

(There is a great deal of variation as to the actual wording of the passage
among even these four witnesses.)

So, to repeat the obvious, the passage is not known in any Greek manuscript before the 14th century. The later evidence is highly suspect (to say the least).

2] Evidence of the Latin Manuscripts:

The passage does not appear in manuscripts of the Vulgate before the 8th century and is missing from major manuscripts for some time after that (e.g. it does not appear in the revision by Alcuin from the 9th cent.) In particular, it does not occur in the version released by Jerome.

It does not appear in the earliest version of the Old Latin (i.e. pre-Vulgate) versions. The first appearance in a Latin manuscript is a single occurance in a 6th century manuscript.

3] Evidence from other versions:

The passage does not occur in any of the other ancient versions: Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabian or Slavonic.

4] Patristic Evidence.

The passage is not cited by any of the Greek Father. (Given their prediliction for Trinitarian controversies, this would have been a most surprising omission, had they actually known of the passage.)

The earliest citation by a Latin Father is the 4th cent. "Liber Apologeticus" (attributed to either Priscillian or Instantius). Not until the 5th century did any Latin Father explicitly cite the passage as part of 1Jn.

It remains true that as has been repeatedly noted, there are NO early GREEK MSS which support the comma. The comma is not supported by the evidence. About 8-10 years ago I had the opportunity to examine an original Erasmus MSS containing the Comma (owned by Rev. Jewell Smith). I eagerly (and delicately) turned to the passage. Very disappointed, his note was in Latin. Did not have a digital camera then and certainly would not have put the volume on top of a copier! In any case, it was a highlight of my research into the comma.

 

Oh, forgot to mention re the "blending" of texts, this is completely irrelevant to this issue! There were virtually no texts with the comma to blend! Of the ones that have it at all in any form, only two are in the text itself!

 

Dr. Bob this is an all inclusive statement "No scholar" and you know that it can't be true. Many scholars today have much to do with W&H.
For example, from an history scholar's point of view at very least as well as one who studies higher textual criticism.

Dr. Bob perhaps you should have said the onlies "consider their mention a slander" And if you are referring to me (I suspect you are not even though your post is directed towards me, but since it is directed to me, I feel I must vindicate myself from this possible allusion that I follow the KJVO error, so to set the record straight):

1) I am not an Only and
2) I have not slandered or made libelous statements about W&H, on the contrary I have defended them against at least one Only (who has again disappeared from the BB) and
3) while I generally disagree with their theories some of which I enumerated, that still persist today (especially their fixation on two ancient mss (Aleph/B)), I respect them as scholarly men and I respect their work and dedication to the study of the Word of God (howbeit frail as we all).
4) To consider 1 John 5:7 apostolic does not make one an Only.

Just to set the record straight.


HankD

 

Thank you Hank.

I was about to write some of the same things about WH!

To the degree that some of the ANTI-KJVO crowd has been disparaging WH you would almost think that they have been reading Gail Riplinger!

Yes, there have been significant advances in New Testament Textual Criticism (form, not source) since WH, but their work was foundational.

Any M.D. who ONLY used penicillin to treat illnesses today would be way out of step with more recent advances. However, there have been times when my Dr. has prescribed penicillin and I have found it to be quite effective.

By the same token, to speak ill of WH is more in line with the KJVO crowd than with those who oppose KJVOism.

Oh, and if you guys have not noticed in my Scripture quotes, I do mainly use the KJV.

 

It is preposterous to claim that no scholar has anything to do with Westcott and Hort--those two still rule the day, if anyone is actually informed about W+H theories to the present Critical groups. They have merely modifed them. It would be like Evolutionists saying "Scientists have nothing to do with Darwin".

The same theories of Westcott and Hort are used today to continue to deny truth--that the TR reflects the originals, and the Critical Text was based on B and Aleph, two sophisticated perversions.

John Burgon proved this over 120 years ago, and the Cambridge boys never attempted to respond, because they couldn't. When one W+H buddy on the Revision committee attemtped to answer for them, what did the learned "Scholar" do??? Well, first he chided and mocked Burgon, and then he merely RE-STATED W+H's theories, as if repeating them was answering Burgon! 79 pages of rehashed Hort, with no direct dealing with what Burgon actually said and wrote.

And thats the way its been ever since! Over 120 years have passed, and not One Hortian "scholar" has attmepted to interact with Burgon on any serious level. They simply do what Bishop Ellicott did--re-state the lies of Westcott and Hort long enough and loud enough until people believe it to be true. In our era, one Wilbur Pickering destroyed the modern manifestation of W+H--Nestle, Aland and Metzger. Again, no one has seriously attempted to disprove his work, simply because truth cannot be refuted.

Dr. Bob, I have read many of your posts for months now, and I have finally entered the fray here. Although I seek no personal quarrel with you, you have posted many things that are simply not true, or are the tactics of gnat-straining. The comment you made on this thread that I'm responding to, for example. It is simply erroneous.

I know some comtemporary Hortians try to downplay Westcott and Hort(because W+H's true colors has come out, and they are running for cover), but it is simply denial.

More honest scholars like E.C. Colwell admitted that W+H ruled the day, even though their theories were never applied to the NT mss. The argument from Hort that "slew" the Textus Receptus was called the Genealogical Method. The problem, as Colwell, Kenyon, Parvis, Kilpatrick and others pointed out, was that Hort NEVER APPLIED the Genealogical Method to the NT mss! Hort simply presented a theory that required a lot of research and work, which neither he nor has anyone ever done since, and presto--present a theory, and pretend its mere presentation makes it a fact.

The whole field of contemporary textual Criticism is built like this---a house of sand--smoke and mirrors. Its too bad you trust this bunch. The "science" of Textual criticism??? These boys have been avoiding empirical evidence for over 120 years and its obvious why---Real scholars like Burgon exploded their mythical "science" for all the world to see, but we have entered the days when men prefer lies, so Burgon was largely rejected BECAUSE of his viewpoint, not his scholarship. The fact that no one to this day has attempted to rebutt him tells us all we need to know---stick with the KJV, or the few honest attempts to update it.

 

Let me give you an example of the typical lying that goes on with Critical Text people. I was on one of James White's debate Chat channels, and we somehow got on the subject of Luke 2:14--"and on earth peace, goodwill to men" The new versions have some Calvinistic slant like "good will to those with whom he is pleased". Being a Limited atonement guy, he needs to get rid of the KJV reading, because itshows God's disposition towards all men--a desire to reconcile with all sinners. So that verse cannot stand, it must be changed.

I told him that I agree with the Hymn, and that it was poor strategy on the part of God to allow so many great hymns to be based on the TR and the KJV. Now then, all these songs have been sung everywhere for centuries, and they are based on the wrong Text and readings??? Songs that have blessed the world??? Who but a Hortian could believe that!

He told me that I was ignoring recent scholarship, since I said Burgon more than proved the KJV reading here. He said the papyri proved his point. I was living in the past 140 years behind current scholarship and research.

Well the fact are that NOT A ONE of the papyri have Luke 2:14. I have them all right here on my shelf as published by Comfort and Barrett. It is a great resource, giving you the whole papyri collection printed in Greek, with English intros and explanations and history.

Luke 2:14 is not there,in any of them. So Burgon's evidence is not 140 years od, but is completely current and relevant. Nothing has changed since he wrote his irrefutable defense of that verse.

James White simply LIED, as he has done many times. He counts on the ignorance of his readers to get away with it, because most of them wouldn't know where to look to verify the things he says. They just believe him---big mistake.

There is your typical Critical Text approach to these issues--Lying. You are trusting the wrong men.