Comma Johanneum

[Mexdeaf]

⇑⇑⇑⇑

I could be wrong but this does not look quite right to me. The numbers don't seem to add up with what I have read before.

 

[Winman]

⇑⇑⇑⇑

I could be wrong but this does not look quite right to me. The numbers don't seem to add up with what I have read before.

Well, you know what they say, numbers never lie, but liars use numbers.

That was only part of the article, the writer has many other arguments besides these.

 

[Havensdad]

Of course, all of this relies on a view of inspiration that rests solely on the autographa. Why is it necessary for inspiration to rest only in the original writings, rather than the compilation of the final form? Is it not possible that the Comma Johanneum was indeed added later, but was nevertheless inspired by the Holy Spirit to be there?

I am unimpressed by textual critical sciences which are based more on secular methodologies for reconstructing ancient documents, than they are with discovering the precise words of God to man.

 

[HankD]

Of course, all of this relies on a view of inspiration that rests solely on the autographa. Why is it necessary for inspiration to rest only in the original writings, rather than the compilation of the final form? Is it not possible that the Comma Johanneum was indeed added later, but was nevertheless inspired by the Holy Spirit to be there?

I am unimpressed by textual critical sciences which are based more on secular methodologies for reconstructing ancient documents, than they are with discovering the precise words of God to man.

You know, I have heard that argument with this difference, it was John the apostle himself who added it several years later to defeat the idea of a division of the essence of the Trinity "these three are one". that is, the Godhead is singular and consists of three distinct persons not three separate persons.


HankD

 

[jonathan.borland]

APPENDIX A
THE JOHANNINE COMMA—EARLY EVIDENCE FOR AND AGAINST
Total examined extant Greek manuscripts = 5,000 +
Total examined extant Greek manuscripts that contain I John 5 = 498
Total examined extant Greek manuscripts hostile to I John 5:7-8 = 492

Historical Breakdown of Hostile Evidence
2/498 – 4th century (a, B) = 0.4% of hostile evidence
2/498 – 5th century (A, 048) = 0.4% of hostile evidence
1/498 – 6th century (0296) = 0.2% of hostile evidence
0/498 – 7th century = 0.0% of hostile evidence
1/498 – 8th century (Y+) = 0.2% of hostile evidence
8/498 – 9th century (K, L, P, 049, 1424+, 1841+, 1862, 1895) = 1.6% of hostile evidence
484/498 – post 9th century = 97.2% of hostile evidence
30 mss. – 10th century
80 mss. – 11th century
79 mss. – 12th century
98 mss. – 13th century
119 mss. – 14th century
55 mss. – 15th century
15 mss. –16th century
6 mss. – 17th century
1 mss. – 18th century
Historical Breakdown of Favorable Evidence
A.D. (ca.) 200 – Tertullian
250 – Cyprian
318 – Athanasius
350 – Idacius Clarus
380 – Priscillian
385 – Gregory of Nazanzius
390 – Jerome
450 – Contra Varimadum
450 – Latin mss. m
485 – Council of Carthage
485 – Victor of Vitensis
500 – Latin mss. r
527 – Fulgentius
570 – Cassiodorus
636 – Isidore of Seville
650 – Codex Pal Legionensus
700 – Jaqub of Edessa
735 – mss. used by Venerable Bede
850 – Codex Ulmensis

*In addition to the aforementioned favorable evidence, the Comma can be traced back through the Waldensian Church to the translation of the Old Italic in the 2nd century. Moreover, in the 7th century, at least 12 Old Latin mss contain the passage; at least 21 in the 8th century, and at least 189 in the 9th century. Over 6,000 Old Latin manuscripts remained unexamined to this day. It is also probable that the Comma was found in the Old Syriac tradition as far back as its translation. The Armenian and Slavonic versions bear witness to the Comma in several copies, and the German versions prior to Luther bear consistent testimony to it.

RESULT: The Johannine Comma enjoys at least 19 pieces of concrete favorable evidence
predating the ninth century; hostile witnesses, on the other hand, can only claim 14 Greek manuscripts and an argument from silence with regard to the patristic evidence. The external evidence is not as one-sided as critical scholars would have us to believe. In fact, critical scholars accept other readings on far less evidence (e.g. Matthew 11:19; II Corinthians 5:3; James 4:14). Or, consider Mark 16:9-20. Scholars rejects this passage as an emendation based upon 3 Greek mss. One of those witnesses, Vaticanus, is actually favorable to the reading because it exhibits a vacant space where the eleven verses should be.

Just reading the last two paragraphs is enough to debunk the credibility of the person who wrote the article.

*In addition to the aforementioned favorable evidence, the Comma can be traced back through the Waldensian Church to the translation of the Old Italic in the 2nd century.

Or maybe the various Waldensian editions simply came from one or another Vulgate ms that had the passage!

Moreover, in the 7th century, at least 12 Old Latin mss contain the passage; at least 21 in the 8th century, and at least 189 in the 9th century. Over 6,000 Old Latin manuscripts remained unexamined to this day.

This is the funniest of all. There are hardly 12 Old Latin mss extant for any given portion of the Gospels, much less for 1 John! Obviously he means Vulgate mss, but the misnomer is unforgivable academically. Actually, most early Vulgate mss also omit the passage.

It is also probable that the Comma was found in the Old Syriac tradition as far back as its translation.

To my knowledge there is no Syriac ms of any kind (Peshitta, Philoxenian, Harklean) that has the passage. It is true that often the Old Latin and Old Syriac agree in the Gospels, but not only are there no Old Syriac mss for 1 John, no Syriac Fathers ever quote the passage, probably because it was never found in any of their copies.

The Armenian and Slavonic versions bear witness to the Comma in several copies, and the German versions prior to Luther bear consistent testimony to it.

And certainly these scattered examples are totally free from dependence on the predominating influence of the Vulgate, right? NOT!

The Johannine Comma enjoys at least 19 pieces of concrete favorable evidence predating the ninth century;

And the Bible was written in Latin, right?

hostile witnesses, on the other hand, can only claim 14 Greek manuscripts

What of the Fathers who quote the passage without the heavenly witnesses, such as Clement, Origen, Cyril, John of Damascus, Ambrose, Augustine, etc.? Certainly the Father, Word, and Holy Spirit would have sounded better than the Spirit, Water, and Blood for their exegesis were the former in their copies to begin with.

and an argument from silence with regard to the patristic evidence.

It's only an argument of silence if they don't quote the passage at all. Those who quote the passage without the illustrious passage are concrete witnesses against the passage. It proves the precise and theologically significant passage was not in their copies. Had it been, they wouldn't have focussed on the less significant "spirit, water, and blood" instead of the much more precise and significant "Father, Word, and Holy Spirit."

The external evidence is not as one-sided as critical scholars would have us to believe.

No, just 99 percent of the mss of 1 John in the language in which it was written do not contain the passage.

In fact, critical scholars accept other readings on far less evidence (e.g. Matthew 11:19; II Corinthians 5:3; James 4:14). Or, consider Mark 16:9-20. Scholars rejects this passage as an emendation based upon 3 Greek mss. One of those witnesses, Vaticanus, is actually favorable to the reading because it exhibits a vacant space where the eleven verses should be

.

This is actually intelligible, and theoretically, based on popular modern text-critical assumptions, a reading found in only a few mss might be original, and thus his pleading here actually makes sense.

Jonathan C. Borland

 

[Gold Dragon]

Total examined extant Greek manuscripts that contain I John 5 = 498
Total examined extant Greek manuscripts hostile to I John 5:7-8 = 492

This is pretty close to the truth. Only 8 (not 6) greek manuscripts have the comma. 4 of the 8 have it in the margins.

Historical Breakdown of Hostile Evidence
2/498 – 4th century (a, B) = 0.4% of hostile evidence
2/498 – 5th century (A, 048) = 0.4% of hostile evidence
1/498 – 6th century (0296) = 0.2% of hostile evidence
0/498 – 7th century = 0.0% of hostile evidence
1/498 – 8th century (Y+) = 0.2% of hostile evidence
8/498 – 9th century (K, L, P, 049, 1424+, 1841+, 1862, 1895) = 1.6% of hostile evidence
484/498 – post 9th century = 97.2% of hostile evidence

The other thing to note is that 100% of the 8 pieces of "Favorable Evidence" for the comma is post 9th century when it comes to greek manuscripts.

This also highlights the problem with the "Majority Text" which just looks at a majority of greek texts, which is significantly skewed to post 9th century texts.

A Student's Guide to New Testament Textual Variants

1 John 5:7-8:

TEXT: "·And the Spirit is the One who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. ·[That is] because there are three who testify: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and [these] three agree as one."
EVIDENCE: S A B K P Psi 048 33 81 104 614 630 945 1241 1739 1881 2495 Byz Lect one lat earlier vg syr(p,h) cop
TRANSLATIONS: ASV RSV NASV NIV NEB TEV
RANK: A

NOTES: "And the Spirit is the One who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. ·[That is] because there are three who testify in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. ·And there are three who testify in the earth: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and [these] three agree as one."
EVIDENCE: 61 88margin 221margin 429margin 629 636margin 918 2318 most lat later vg
TRANSLATIONS: KJV NASVn NIVn

COMMENTS: A complete list of the Greek manuscripts that include this passage is given above, in spite of the fact that none of the manuscripts were copied before the tenth century. There is much variation among those who have it, and most of the old Latin manuscripts have the witnesses on earth before the witnesses in heaven. The expanded passage is a fourth century Latin gloss on verse 8 which found its way into the Latin text and was back-translated into a few Greek manuscripts.

Key to abbreviations

 

[Winman]

You guys are focusing on and attacking his numbers only, what about the many other arguments he presents? For example;

Syntactical Analysis
Of significant interest with regard to the Johannine Comma is the issue of syntax. Plainly speaking, if the Comma is omitted, John's word choice seems extremely awkward and unusual with respect to the general rules of the Greek language. The masculine article, numeral, and participle (There are three that bear witness[89]) are made to agree with three neuter nouns (Spirit, water, and blood[90]).As Robert Dabney argues, "This is an insuperable and very bald grammatical difficulty."[91]John most definitely would not have made such a connection, for his structure and syntax are altogether simple and understandable. In attempting to excuse this awkward choice of words, Daniel Wallace states "the fact that the author has personified water and blood, turning them into witnesses along with the Spirit, may be enough to account for the masculine gender."[92]However, the personification of the water and blood does not become evident unless the Comma is present. It is true that the Spirit (pneuma), a neuter word, is sometimes used in connection with masculinity because the author is referring to the Holy Spirit as a person, a member of the Godhead; but inanimate objects are rarely, if at all, "masculinatized" for the purpose of personification. Besides, Wallace's answer does not explain verse 6.There, Pneuma, as the third person of the Trinity, is not provided as a masculine to personalize the Spirit's witness; it remain neuter.
If the disputed verse is allowed to remain, the three neuter nouns agree with the two masculines (Father & Word[93]) and one neuter of verse 7 (Holy Spirit[94]), and, according to the rules of Greek syntax, the masculines among the group control the gender over a neuter connected to them. Such is termed the "power of attraction" and is common throughout the New Testament and John's writings in particular. As previously noted, Gregory of Nazanzius, an early Greek Church Father, objected to the omission of the Comma for similar syntactical reasons (ca. 385).[95]
Structural Analysis
From the above structural analysis, a contrast of two groups of three becomes apparent. It is common scriptural usage to present solemn truths or warnings in groups of two, three, or four. Examples of this include Proverbs 30; Amos 1:3, 6, 9, 13 etc.; the visions of the butler and baker in Genesis 40; and the combination of Christ's words in Matthew 12:14.It is in accord with Biblical usage, therefore, to expect that in I John 5, "there are three that bear witness" will be repeated at least twice.

The Comma is also structurally important with reference to verse 9. I John 5:7 describes the witness of God; I John 5:8 describes the witness of men. "If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater" (5:9).Without the Comma, 5:9 has no antecedent and consequently, makes no sense.

 

[RAdam]

It's called being honest. they are letting the reader know that there is a textual variant in the passage. the KJV translators did the same thing. (go find a KJV with the original marginal notes and you will know what I mean). And it's not stupid either, its again being honest with the reader that some manuscripts have the portion or don't have the portion, depending on the situation.

Give me one example of the KJ translators leaving a text out and then placing it in the footnotes. They put alternate renderings of words in the margin, which I've always said is very useful and I own a bible which has these alternate renderings in the center column.

Again, though, I despise when you are discussing a modern english translation and someone brings up the KJ. I said nothing about the KJ, but rather a practice that some modern translations use. The next I know someone is saying something about the KJ, something not true by the way. Can I not discuss a modern translation practice and leave the KJ out?

 

[jbh28]

Give me one example of the KJ translators leaving a text out and then placing it in the footnotes. They put alternate renderings of words in the margin, which I've always said is very useful and I own a bible which has these alternate renderings in the center column.

Again, though, I despise when you are discussing a modern english translation and someone brings up the KJ. I said nothing about the KJ, but rather a practice that some modern translations use. The next I know someone is saying something about the KJ, something not true by the way. Can I not discuss a modern translation practice and leave the KJ out?

Did it in another thread as I felt it is a different discussion.
http://baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=67904

 

[RAdam]

Did it in another thread as I felt it is a different discussion.
http://baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=67904

Actually, you didn't.

 

[jbh28]

Actually, you didn't.

Actually I did. Go back and re-read it

 

[RAdam]

Actually I did. Go back and re-read it

I did. I'm still waiting for an example.

 

[jbh28]

In the older english translations the verses begin something like this:
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven...
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth...

The NIV has it this way:
7 For there are three that testify...
8 The Spirit...

Notice something missing from the NIV? One of the "there are 3 that bear record/testify" statements.

I've shown this multiple times already. I will again now.

KJ verse 8 = NIV verses 7 and 8.

Begninning of KJ verse 8 "And there are three that bear witness in earth" = NIV verse 7 "For there are three that testify". Rest of KJ verse 8 "the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one" = all of NIV verse 8 "the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."

It's pretty simple. They cut out all of verse 7 and split up verse 8.

Look at the beginning of the verse 7 in the KJV, that's the part that is in the verse 7 of the NIV. BOTH start with the same statement. And the NIV's statement is most like the KJV's verse 7.

KJV verse 7 "For there are three that bear record"
NIV verse 7 "For there are three that testify"

 

[Jerome]

One of these things is not like the other:

NIV footnote
1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century)

TNIV footnote
1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century)

 

[jbh28]

One of these things is not like the other:

NIV footnote
1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century)

TNIV footnote
1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century)

Either they have different info, or more manuscripts with it included were found that moved the date back. Not sure. Don't even use the NIV so don't really care.

 

[RAdam]

Look at the beginning of the verse 7 in the KJV, that's the part that is in the verse 7 of the NIV. BOTH start with the same statement. And the NIV's statement is most like the KJV's verse 7.

KJV verse 7 "For there are three that bear record"
NIV verse 7 "For there are three that testify"

Talk about willfull denial. NIV verse 7 is the beginning of KJV verse 8.

 

[jbh28]

Talk about willfull denial. NIV verse 7 is the beginning of KJV verse 8.

Actually not. Verse 8(in the KJV) begins with "and" and verse 7(which the NIV has) begins with "for."


TR
verse 7 οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες
verse 8 και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες

CT
Verse 7 οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες

So, which one is it more like? Verse 7 or 8?

KJV verse 7 "For there are three that bear record"
KJV verse 8 "And there are three that bear witness"

NIV verse 7 "For there are three that testify"

Note, "record" "witness" and "testify" all are the same Greek word μαρτυρουντες

 

[Maestroh]

Late To The Party Am I

Do you believe that the Comma Johanneum is original? If so, why? If you don't believe it is original, please explain why.

1 John 5:7-8 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (KJV)

1 John 5:7-8 For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree. (ESV (no comma))

Well, the poll is closed. However, I've done a lot of work through the years on this particular passage, and I have no doubt that the passage is a Latin corruption that eventually wound up in later Greek manuscripts.

In fact, it is SINGULARLY Latin. The lack of any Greek manuscript testimony from the first ten-plus centuries, the lack of any testimony other than Latin, it is about as solid proof as possible that John did not write it.

Now....that is not to say that what it declares is not true, but it is not authentic. It is a distinctively Latin corruption that can easily be traced.

 

[Maestroh]

This Statement Aroused My Curiosity...

Hi God's_Servant

You asked.......

Most of the English speaking ones, lived during the 1500's, 1600's, 1700's and most of the 1800's, so I can’t actually talk to them.
But, I know(and you also know), that they accepted it, because it was never removed, during these centuries!

I'm curious - how do you think any individual Christian could have somehow "removed" this passage from the text?

That statement really confuses me.

 

[Maestroh]

Hello

John Gill explores the subject fairly exhaustively in his commentary on the text:

"The genuineness of this text has been called in question by some, because it is wanting in the Syriac version, as it also is in the Arabic and Ethiopic versions; and because the old Latin interpreter has it not; and it is not to be found in many Greek manuscripts; nor cited by many of the ancient fathers, even by such who wrote against the Arians, when it might have been of great service to them: to all which it may be replied, that as to the Syriac version, which is the most ancient, and of the greatest consequence, it is but a version, and a defective one. The history of the adulterous woman in the eighth of John, the second epistle of Peter, the second and third epistles of John, the epistle of Jude, and the book of the Revelations, were formerly wanting in it, till restored from Bishop Usher's copy by De Dieu and Dr. Pocock, and who also, from an eastern copy, has supplied this version with this text. As to the old Latin interpreter, it is certain it is to be seen in many Latin manuscripts of an early date, and stands in the Vulgate Latin edition of the London Polyglot Bible: and the Latin translation, which bears the name of Jerom, has it, and who, in an epistle of his to Eustochium, prefixed to his translation of these canonical epistles, complains of the omission of it by unfaithful interpreters. And as to its being wanting in some Greek manuscripts, as the Alexandrian, and others, it need only be said, that it is to be found in many others; it is in an old British copy, and in the Complutensian edition, the compilers of which made use of various copies; and out of sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephens's, nine of them had it: and as to its not being cited by some of the ancient fathers, this can be no sufficient proof of the spuriousness of it, since it might be in the original copy, though not in the copies used by them, through the carelessness or unfaithfulness of transcribers; or it might be in their copies, and yet not cited by them, they having Scriptures enough without it, to defend the doctrine of the Trinity, and the divinity of Christ: and yet, after all, certain it is, that it is cited by many of them; by Fulgentius {z}, in the beginning of the "sixth" century, against the Arians, without any scruple or hesitation; and Jerom, as before observed, has it in his translation made in the latter end of the "fourth" century; and it is cited by Athanasius {a} about the year 350; and before him by Cyprian {b}, in the middle, of the "third" century, about the year 250; and is referred to by Tertullian {c} about, the year 200; and which was within a "hundred" years, or little more, of the writing of the epistle; which may be enough to satisfy anyone of the genuineness of this passage; and besides, there never was any dispute about it till Erasmus left it out in the, first edition of his translation of the New Testament; and yet he himself, upon the credit of the old British copy before mentioned, put it into another edition of his translation."

D.A. Carson debunked this in 1979 in "The KJV Debate: A Plea for Realism," noting among other things that Gill was flat out wrong about the facts in the manuscripts (it did not belong in 9 of 16 copies