Early support for 1 John 5:7?

[HankD]

If 1 John 5:7 is so "strongly supported by patristic evidence" then why didn't Dean John Burgon defend it? He was the one that was working on a "scriptural index" of patristic quotations. However, he died before it was completed

As far as I can tell he was silent as to 1 John 5:7 which is somewhat telling.

Others have claimed he was against it's genuiness but I have never seen this documented as fact.

I'm not saying one way or another whether he supported it or not, because I don't know. Personally I would need to see the quote, publ. and year and not just hear-say.

HankD

 

[icthus]

natters, you wrote:

"Again, if it was, why is it completely absent from all discussions and councils that dealt with Arianism for a time span of approx 150 years??? Can you imagine 1 Thess 4:15 never being quoted by anyone discussing and debating the rapture over a period of 150 years?"

This does not prove that the text was not around at this time. It must be remembered, that there are instances where as Church father quotes a verse in one way in one of his writings, and in another work, he has the text read completely differently!

The is a "Prologue" to the Catholic Epistles under the name of Jerome (his authorship of this work has not been disproved. I have read all the objections raised against this being the work of Jerome, and have no doubt that it is his word), in which Jerome complains of "unfaithful translators removing the testimony to the Three Heavenly Witnesses", though Jerome himself says that the words were in Greek manuscripts of his time! As I showed before, commenting on John 7:52-8:11, Jerome says that the passage of the woman in adultery was found in "many Greek and Latin manuscripts". However, the earliest Greek-Latin manuscript that does have the passage, is a fifth or sixth century one, much after the death of Jerome! Where then are these "many Greek and Latin manuscripts"?

You ask if 1 John 5:7 was available during the 4th century, the it should have been used. The fourth century was the time when the Person of Jesus Christ was the centre of discussions. Both His Deity and Humanity were being challenged. How many of the Church fathers do you know, who used 1 Timothy 3:16 against the heretic Arius? The verse reading, "God was manifested in the flesh..." (not the corrupted "He", etc) was known to the Greek fathers, such as, Didymus, Gregory of Nyssa, who qouted it at least 22 times!, John Damascus, Chrysostom, Gregory of Naz., Diodorus, etc (the Latin fathers who quote it have "qui" [which])Yet, the good friend of both the Gregory's, Basil the great does not seem to be aware of the reading "God". Nor does Cyril of Alexandria. Nor did the "champion" of the Orthodox party, who fought so much against the demonic heresy of Arius, Athanasius, know of this reading! But, the evidence clearly shows that the reading was around in his time! In fact, Didymus "the blind" who has "God was manifested in the flesh..." in his writings, was a close, personal friend of Athanasius! Yet, in spite of all of the evidence that clearly shows that "God was manifested in the flesh..." is in fact the work of the apostle Paul, yet it was not used by many against the heresy of Arius, though some did so!

You say that 1 John 5:7 was not used in any of the discussions of the Councils. This is incorrect. The last quote that I gave earlier from the Latin writings of Tertullian, Cyprian, was from the great Council in the 5th century of African Bishops, where the Statement of Faith produced by this council, and presented to the anti-Trinitarian Arian king, Hunnerc, actual refers to this very verse to prove the Trinity! Something they would not have done if it could have been contradicted!

The argument by Michaelis, which is repeated by Dr Thomas Horne, and others, that the testimony of Cyprian is to be rejected because he was a Church father who wrote and spoke Latin! This is what I call desperate measures! We know that Cyprian's parents saw to it that their son, though from North Africa, where Latin was the main language, got himself a Greek education! Can anyone have a Greek education and not know any Greek? We also know, that an Epistle that Cyprian received from Firmillan which was in Greek, and Cyprian translated it into Latin himself! There is no doubt that Tertillian, who was also from North Africa, was in the habit of translating the Greek New Testament into Latin. There can be no doubt that Cyprian himself also possessed a copy of the New Testament in Greek.

How do we know that Cyprian was NOT quoting from verse eight? This is quite simple. Verse eight reads: "et hi tres in unum sunt"; whereas Cyprian wrote: "et tres unum sunt", which is what the seventh verse has, without the "in" = "and the three are in one"!

I might add another important point here. In the Greek text of verse eight, the final clause reads: "kai hoi treis eis to hen eisin". Now, if you know Greek grammar, can you answer me this one question. To what purpose did John use the definite article, "to" in this verse? It is never translated into English. But, why did he use it here? We do kmow that one of the uses of the defenite article in the Greek, is for "renewed mention", when something that has been said before, is simply "pointed to" by the use of the Greek article in its repeated use. In our present case, the Greek article "to" is attached to "hen" (one), whereby referring it pack to its "previous use". But, apart from its use in verse seven, where else in this chapter is it used? Without verse seven, the Greek article in verse eight is pointless!

 

[manchester]

Please do not attack the Word of God, or disclaim parts of God's Word that aren't included in your favorite Bible version, or elevate non-scripture to the level of scripture because it's included in your favorite Bible version.

 

[Scott J]

Cyprian was more likely to be the source of the comma than a quoter of it.

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1185

 

[icthus]

Originally posted by manchester:
Please do not attack the Word of God, or disclaim parts of God's Word that aren't included in your favorite Bible version, or elevate non-scripture to the level of scripture because it's included in your favorite Bible version.

Please explain what you are getting at here! Just because you may not accept 1 John 5:7, or 1 Timothy 3:16, does not give you the right to rant!

 

[Kiffen]

I have never read anywhere of the Eastern Fathers having any problems with the Holy Trinity. That is just not true. The Cappadocians fathers affirmed the Deity of the Holy Spirit and were staunch defenders of the Trinity. To say different is to make up history.

Basil the Great as stated by Ransom wrote a argument against the Arians in which he defended the Deity of the Holy Spirit called "On the Holy Spirit" in which he urged Christians to worship the Holy Spirit as equal with the Father and the Son.

Gregory of Nazianzus, “". . .in AD 381 the general Council of Constantinople met, it declared its approval of the Nicene Creed and under the guidance of Gregory of Nazianzus accepted the following formula respecting the Holy Spirit: 'And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Life-giving, who proceeds from the Father, who is to be glorified with the Father and the Son, and who speaks through the prophets.'" (Berkhof, p 90-91)

 

[natters]

Originally posted by icthus:
This does not prove that the text was not around at this time.

I agree. However, 150 years with Arianism being the hot topic is a long time to go without quoting the most important verse that opposes Arianism!

You say that 1 John 5:7 was not used in any of the discussions of the Councils. This is incorrect. The last quote that I gave earlier from the Latin writings of Tertullian, Cyprian, was from the great Council in the 5th century of African Bishops

I was referring to the Nicene-era councils, specifically the Nicene Council of AD 325 and the First Council of Constantinople of AD 381. Both these councils dealt primarily with the subject of the Trinity, in the context of opposing Arianism, and we don't hear a peep about 1 John 5:7. We have Cyprian's questionable quote from AD 250, then silence about this verse for approx 150 years - during the height of the Arian controversy and the two most important councils on the subject. if 1 John 5:7 is indeed genuine, let alone available to them, I find that utterly astounding.

I have no idea if Cyprian spoke Greek. Maybe he did. It doesn't change anything.

How do we know that Cyprian was NOT quoting from verse eight? This is quite simple. Verse eight reads: "et hi tres in unum sunt"; whereas Cyprian wrote: "et tres unum sunt", which is what the seventh verse has, without the "in" = "and the three are in one"!

What version of the Latin scriptures are you using? Mine says "et hi tres unum sunt" in both verses. I'll have to check my other sources later.

I might add another important point here. In the Greek text of verse eight, the final clause reads: "kai hoi treis eis to hen eisin". Now, if you know Greek grammar, can you answer me this one question. To what purpose did John use the definite article, "to" in this verse? It is never translated into English. But, why did he use it here? We do kmow that one of the uses of the defenite article in the Greek, is for "renewed mention", when something that has been said before, is simply "pointed to" by the use of the Greek article in its repeated use. In our present case, the Greek article "to" is attached to "hen" (one), whereby referring it pack to its "previous use". But, apart from its use in verse seven, where else in this chapter is it used? Without verse seven, the Greek article in verse eight is pointless!

Interesting. A quick look suggests that if this is indeed why John used "to", the previous use is possibly also in verse 8: you say the last phrase says "kai hoi treis eis to hen eisin", and I've bolded the two instances of "one" ("hen" is not "one", "hen" is a general-use preposition, like "are/in/etc."). But I'll look more into that later, right now I'm focused only on the historical (Nicene and ante-Nicene) support.

 

[icthus]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Cyprian was more likely to be the source of the comma than a quoter of it.

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1185

Yes, and pigs might fly!

I don't see any hard evidence in the argument by Dr Wallace, just a statement by someone who is anti-KJV, and like Dr A T Robertson, the great Greek scholar, does come out with some complete nonsense when dealing with are area where they seem to know very little about!

Again it is sad to see such statements, like Cyprian being the source of 1 John 5:7, without any evidence at all. As this leaves us open to the charge that any Scripture then can be the work of someone other than God! Get real! Just because someone cannot accept certain facts, which might go against their understanding, does not give them the right to introduce fancy ideas about the testimony. The fact that Dr Wallace's article is as short as it is, shows me that he has got his "evidence" second-hand!

 

[natters]

Originally posted by icthus:
Yes, and pigs might fly!

Even the lengthy article you posted said it was "plausible".

As this leaves us open to the charge that any Scripture then can be the work of someone other than God! Get real!

No, no one is saying that. If Cyprian is indeed the source, then it wouldn't be original scripture to begin with.

 

[icthus]

Originally posted by Kiffen:
I have never read anywhere of the Eastern Fathers having any problems with the Holy Trinity. That is just not true. The Cappadocians fathers affirmed the Deity of the Holy Spirit and were staunch defenders of the Trinity. To say different is to make up history.

Basil the Great as stated by Ransom wrote a argument against the Arians in which he defended the Deity of the Holy Spirit called "On the Holy Spirit" in which he urged Christians to worship the Holy Spirit as equal with the Father and the Son.

Gregory of Nazianzus, “". . .in AD 381 the general Council of Constantinople met, it declared its approval of the Nicene Creed and under the guidance of Gregory of Nazianzus accepted the following formula respecting the Holy Spirit: 'And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Life-giving, who proceeds from the Father, who is to be glorified with the Father and the Son, and who speaks through the prophets.'" (Berkhof, p 90-91)

"Gregory of Nazianzen, who for his own part believed and taught the consubstantiality of the Holy Ghost with the Father and the Son, so late as 380 made the remarkable confession: 'Of the wise among us, some consider the Holy Ghost an influence, others, a creature, others God Himself, and again others know not which way to decide, from reverence, as they say, for the Holy Scripture, which declares nothing exact in the case. For this reason they waver between worshipping and no worshipping the Holy Ghost, and strike a middle course, which is in fact, however, a bad one. Basil in 370, still carefully avoided calling the Holy Ghost God, though with the view of gaining the weak. Hilary of Poietiers believed that the Spirit, who searches the deep things of God, must be divine, but could find no Scripture passage in which he is called God" (Philip Schaff; History of the Christian Church, vol.II, p 664)

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by icthus:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
Cyprian was more likely to be the source of the comma than a quoter of it.

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1185

Yes, and pigs might fly!

I don't see any hard evidence in the argument by Dr Wallace, just a statement by someone who is anti-KJV,</font>[/QUOTE] Can you prove that Dr Wallace is "anti-KJV"?

BTW, you don't see because you don't want to. He cited the near complete absence of the Comma in textual witnesses. It is you that have failed to post any hard evidence. Just conjecture...

You cannot even cite a Bible version contemporary with Cyprian that contained the words. This makes it more likely that he or some other expositor was the origin of the wording.

Again it is sad to see such statements, like Cyprian being the source of 1 John 5:7, without any evidence at all. As this leaves us open to the charge that any Scripture then can be the work of someone other than God!

No it doesn't. That is an absolutely ridiculous statement.

If 99% of the Book is supported by 99% of the evidence then you have no basis for claiming that an exclusion of 1% supported by less than 1% is a threat to the whole. IOW's, to question something supported by 2 mss out of 5000 is reasonable but to question something that is unanimously supported is unreasonable.

The whole point of this discussion is that the support for the Comma is incredibly weak when compared with the support for virtually all of the rest of the Bible.

Just because someone cannot accept certain facts, which might go against their understanding,

You are guilty of this. You refuse to accept the fact that the evidence for the Comma is weak. You deny strong evidence against it such as its absence in controversies concerning the Trinity in the early church and in the Greek mss.

The fact that Dr Wallace's article is as short as it is, shows me that he has got his "evidence" second-hand!

So? Is any or your "evidence" first hand?

 

[icthus]

If Cyprian is indeed the source, then it wouldn't be original scripture to begin with.

"IF", are you going to be content with mere speculation? If we do not deal with the facts, then there is no point in believing any of the Bible itself, as sooner or later there will be someone who will say, maybe that verse in John 3:16 was not part of the original, it was something that actually came from the writings of Augustine! The words are in Cyprian's works, now, only someone, like Daniel Wallace, who cannot accept that 1 John 5:7 is part of the epistle, will deal with conjecture!

 

[icthus]

Scott J

If you took the time to read my posts on this subject, you will see that I have given supporting evidence, more than any other on this thread!

If you were to read this from Dr Wallace's website, you will clearly see that he too is anti-KJV - http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=665.

As I have stated elsewhere, I do not make a statement that I can't back up with the evidence!

 

[natters]

Originally posted by icthus:
"IF", are you going to be content with mere speculation?

Relax, I was just responding to your point about scripture being the work of someone other than God, and showing that wouldn't be the case.

If we do not deal with the facts

I am trying to deal with the facts. So far, you have not proven conclusively that Tertullian or Cyprian quoted the verse, let alone the verse even existed prior to the Nicene and Constantinople Councils.

then there is no point in believing any of the Bible itself, as sooner or later there will be someone who will say, maybe that verse in John 3:16 was not part of the original, it was something that actually came from the writings of Augustine!

Hogwash. Was Psalm 145:13b part of the original? Was "through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages" in Jude 1:25 part of the original? Was "through the Holy Spirit" in Acts 4:25 part of the original? If so, why are they not in the traditional texts? If not, why would it be wrong to question their authenticity?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by icthus:
If Cyprian is indeed the source, then it wouldn't be original scripture to begin with.

Correct.

"IF", are you going to be content with mere speculation?

That is all you are doing. You have a quote from Cyprian that was probably a commentary on I John 5:7 and have turned it into a citation.

If we do not deal with the facts, then there is no point in believing any of the Bible itself,

The facts have been discussed with you repeatedly here. The fact is that only 2 Greek mss contain the words as part of the text and both are of late origin. None of the early versions contain the wording except for the Latin... and then not even the earliest Latin.

This text was not cited as scripture in early defenses of the Trinity. This above all others is critical proof that the wording was not original.

as sooner or later there will be someone who will say, maybe that verse in John 3:16 was not part of the original,

If they do so, they will be playing the role you do here... arguing against massive evidence to the contrary.

it was something that actually came from the writings of Augustine!

And in early versions and mss throughout church history in every corner of the evangelized world.

The words are in Cyprian's works, now, only someone, like Daniel Wallace, who cannot accept that 1 John 5:7 is part of the epistle, will deal with conjecture!

Only you are making conjecture. Others are simply allowing the massive array of evidence against the Comma say what it says.

 

[icthus]

Scott J

The fact that Dr Wallace's article is as short as it is, shows me that he has got his "evidence" second-hand!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So? Is any or your "evidence" first hand?

YES. I have spent many, many hours here in the major libaries in London, examining the Greek, Latin manuscripts, some original, some very good facimilies, and the works of the Church fathers in the original as well! So, my evidence is not borrowed from Bruce M Metzger, etc!

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by icthus:
Scott J

If you took the time to read my posts on this subject, you will see that I have given supporting evidence, more than any other on this thread!

I have watched this thread for awhile now. I haven't seen you post anything of real substance to overcome the evidence against the Comma.

There is some evidence for it... it is just very weak and relies on conjecture relating to how it got dropped from the text so broadly for so long.

If you were to read this from Dr Wallace's website, you will clearly see that he too is anti-KJV - http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=665.

As I have stated elsewhere, I do not make a statement that I can't back up with the evidence!

Saying that the KJV is not the best translation available is a far cry from being "anti-KJV".

 

[icthus]

natters:

"I am trying to deal with the facts. So far, you have not proven conclusively that Tertullian or Cyprian quoted the verse, let alone the verse even existed prior to the Nicene and Constantinople Councils"

What, do you want Tertullian and Cyprian to tell you directly that they saw these words in 1 John 5:7? You choose, like Scott J not to accept the evidence that there is, even though, as I have shown, that the internal Greek grammar determines that the words HAVE TO BE THERE! Neither you or any of the others have even answered the internal grammatical evidence! Why not?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by icthus:
Scott J

The fact that Dr Wallace's article is as short as it is, shows me that he has got his "evidence" second-hand!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So? Is any or your "evidence" first hand?

YES. I have spent many, many hours here in the major libaries in London, examining the Greek, Latin manuscripts, some original, some very good facimilies, and the works of the Church fathers in the original as well! So, my evidence is not borrowed from Bruce M Metzger, etc!

Which Greek mss have you examined other than the 2-8 late ones that support the Comma?

What early church fathers besides the two discussed here gave any witness to the Comma?

You have danced around the issue but never really dealt with it from an objective perspective. The weight of the evidence is heavily against the Comma. You have pretty much exhausted what little support there is... but there is hundreds of times more that could be cited against it.

 

[icthus]

Scott J

I have watched this thread for awhile now. I haven't seen you post anything of real substance to overcome the evidence against the Comma

Thats because you are not opening your eyes!

Like I have said to natters, can you deal with the FACT, that the Greek grammar demands that verse 7 is part of the passage.

I now challenge anyone on this board to prove that this is NOT the case!