Matthew Henry on 1 John 5:7

[SavedByGrace]

Again the onus is on those advocating the Kjvo position of that being the actual record of the Apostle John, as there is no textual evidence to support it was to be included in the Greek text except by Latin references, which were way after originally writing, and most troublesome is that not even Eramus could find support for that in his first 2 greek editions!

Nothing to do with KJVO, which I am NOT, the FACTS say that God the Spirit Inspired 1 John 5:7 as in the KJV!

 

[JesusFan]

then try to disprove what I have shown from the Greek grammar. Even Dr A T Roberston who was a far greater Greek scholar than Wallace, get things wrong! We are fallible humans after all!

I would trust their viewpoints as recognized experts over yours and mine though!

 

[SavedByGrace]

You are a time waster, as you would reject even a person as well qualified as Dr. Wallace.

 

[JesusFan]

Nothing to do with KJVO, which I am NOT, the FACTS say that God the Spirit Inspired 1 John 5:7 as in the KJV!

Not saying that you are, but they are only ones really supporting your view!

 

[SavedByGrace]

I would trust their viewpoints as recognized experts over yours and mine though!

really? WHAT from my posts on here can you disprove from the Greek and Hebrew?

 

[Conan]

maybe you can't read English!

THIS is what I wrote, "Both Tertullian and Cyprian wrote in the Old Latin from"

can you see that I have already said that "Tertullian and Cyprian WROTE in the Old Latin from"

BUT, both Tertullian and Cyprian were educated in GREEK. Tertullain translated the GREEK into Latin for himself. As Cyprian knew Greek, there can be no doubt that he had a Greek NT, as Tertullian did. Even the later Latin Church fathers, like Jerome, Ambrose and Augustine, knew Greek and used the Greek NT.

so what you say is nonsense!

You have no proof whatsoever that Cyprian had a Greek Bible. Thats pure fantasy. You may pretend that he had a Greek Bible, but there is no proof whatsoever. It's not an accurate claim. In fact Cyprians biblical quotes match a certain Type of Old Latin manuscripts. Not Greek.

 

[JesusFan]

really? WHAT from my posts on here can you disprove from the Greek and Hebrew?

From what both of them wrote concerning this topic!

 

[SavedByGrace]

You have no proof whatsoever that Cyprian had a Greek Bible. Thats pure fantasy. You may pretend that he had a Greek Bible, but there is no proof whatsoever. It's not an accurate claim. In fact Cyprians biblical quotes match a certain Type of Old Latin manuscripts. Not Greek.

1. Cyprian read and wrote Greek, as is clear from his correspondence with Bishop Firmilian:

“Before the winter of 256 Cyprian’s messengers to Firmilian returned with his reply, the most enthusiastic letter of the series. We have it in Cyprian’s translation from the Greek” (H Wace The Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects, and Doctrines)

2. No doubt that Cyprian could translate Greek, which means that he was well versed in the language.

3. The Old Latin New Testament was made from the Greek, which means that this Version represents the Greek NT.

4. Cypian was a Bishop, and no doubt like Tertullian, would have owned a copy of the NT in Greek. Regardless of the so called "evidence" against this, as you claim, Tertullian and Cyprian were friends, and we know that Tertullian translated for himself from the Greek NT. Can you refute this?

5. You will notice that in both the quotes from Tertullian and Cyprian, where 1 John 5:7 is referred to, John 10:30 is also quoted in reference to the esseatial unity of the Persons in the Godhead.

6. "Cyprian scarcely ever makes a Scriptural quotation without using an introductory formula, thus separating the quotation from his own comments. The most frequent introductory formula is the expression used by New Testament writers themselves, 'It is written' (scriptum est)" (Bruce Metzger; The Canon of the New Testament, page 162)
Here are the words of Cyprian, “Dicit Dominus, ego et Pater unum sumus, et iterum de Patre, et Filio et Spiritu Sancto, scriptum est, et tres unum sunt” (De Unitate Ecclesiae, Op.p.109). Which means that Cyprian quotes from Scripture!

This is what is called, GAME, SET and MATCH to ME!

 

[SavedByGrace]

From what both of them wrote concerning this topic!

which makes what they said, infallible? based on what?

 

[The Archangel]

The Greek evidence shows beyond any doubt to anyone who knows Greek, that the words are part of the Original. So Wallace is WRONG!

So... Wallace is wrong because you want to be right...

Ok.

The Archangel

 

[SavedByGrace]

So... Wallace is wrong because you want to be right...

Ok.

The Archangel

Here is your chance to prove me wrong

The Holy Trinity in 1 John 5:7

 

[The Archangel]

I only believe that the Original Autographs of the 66 Books of the Holy Bible are θεόπνευστος. NO translation, not even the LXX, has any Divine Inspiration by the Holy Spirit.

What I am saying about Tertullain and Cyprian is this. They both read "οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν", in their Greek and Latin First Letter of John, from which they quote.

You say, "But then you talk about Tertullian and Cyprian citing 1 John 5:7 in opposition to the originals". WHAT ORIGINALS? We have ZERO riginals of ANY of the 66 Books of the Bible! ALL manuscripts are COPIES of COPIES. The OLDEST Greek manuscript for this verse in 1 John 5, is the FOURTH century Codex Siniaticus, which is over a HUNDRED years AFTER Tertullian and Cyprian!

The words in 1 John 5:7 are indeed not any any EXISTING Greek manuscript before the 14th or 15th century, but the fact that both Tertullian and Cyprian quote the words from the Greek, shows that it was in their time!

The words you seem to be referring to appear for the first time in 1215.

See:

The words “in heaven: the Father, the word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth” are usually said to be found in only four Greek MSS (61 88mg 629 635ms—so Metzger, 717; but UBS gives 61 88mg 429mg 629 636mg 918). None of these is earlier than the fourteenth century. The passage is quoted by none of the Greek church writers, and it first appears in Greek in a council report of 1215. None of the ancient versions of the New Testament contains the words, except the Latin version. The words appear, with considerable variation (including inversion of the order of the two sets of witnesses), in some Old Latin and Vulgate MSS, but not in the earliest form of the Old Latin or in Jerome’s edition of the Vulgate. They are attested by a number of Latin writers, the earliest certain reference being in the Liber Apologeticus of the Spanish writer Priscillian (ob. c. 385) or his follower Instantius. It is wholly improbable that such a weakly attested reading is an original part of the text of 1 John, and the added words cause a break in the sense. The addition appears to rest on allegorical exegesis of the three witnesses in the text; it was probably written in the margin of a Latin MS and then found its way into the text; later still the order of the two sets of witnesses was inverted and the text was translated back into Greek and was included in a few Greek MSS. Erasmus rejected it from the first two editions of his Greek New Testament; he said that he would include it if a single Greek MS could be produced containing the words. Such a MS (61), probably written in 1520, was produced, and Erasmus had to keep his word in his third edition (1522), although he protested forcibly; subsequently, he again omitted the words. But the words remained in the Vulgate, and modern Roman Catholic translations, based on the Vulgate rather than the Greek text, included them (so Knox); the most recent Roman Catholic translations (such as the Jerusalem Bible) omit them. There remains some doubt as to how far back the variant reading can be traced in the Latin tradition (Schnackenburg, 46; W. Thiele, “Beobachtungen zum Comma Johanneum (1 Joh. 5, 7f.),” ZNW 50, 1959, 61–73), but this does not affect the basic issue. Elsewhere the Latin text of 1 John shows other interpolations and alterations (2:17; 4:3; 5:6, 20).

I. Howard Marshall, The Epistles of John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978).​

 

[SavedByGrace]

The words you seem to be referring to appear for the first time in 1215.

See:

The words “in heaven: the Father, the word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth” are usually said to be found in only four Greek MSS (61 88mg 629 635ms—so Metzger, 717; but UBS gives 61 88mg 429mg 629 636mg 918). None of these is earlier than the fourteenth century. The passage is quoted by none of the Greek church writers, and it first appears in Greek in a council report of 1215. None of the ancient versions of the New Testament contains the words, except the Latin version. The words appear, with considerable variation (including inversion of the order of the two sets of witnesses), in some Old Latin and Vulgate MSS, but not in the earliest form of the Old Latin or in Jerome’s edition of the Vulgate. They are attested by a number of Latin writers, the earliest certain reference being in the Liber Apologeticus of the Spanish writer Priscillian (ob. c. 385) or his follower Instantius. It is wholly improbable that such a weakly attested reading is an original part of the text of 1 John, and the added words cause a break in the sense. The addition appears to rest on allegorical exegesis of the three witnesses in the text; it was probably written in the margin of a Latin MS and then found its way into the text; later still the order of the two sets of witnesses was inverted and the text was translated back into Greek and was included in a few Greek MSS. Erasmus rejected it from the first two editions of his Greek New Testament; he said that he would include it if a single Greek MS could be produced containing the words. Such a MS (61), probably written in 1520, was produced, and Erasmus had to keep his word in his third edition (1522), although he protested forcibly; subsequently, he again omitted the words. But the words remained in the Vulgate, and modern Roman Catholic translations, based on the Vulgate rather than the Greek text, included them (so Knox); the most recent Roman Catholic translations (such as the Jerusalem Bible) omit them. There remains some doubt as to how far back the variant reading can be traced in the Latin tradition (Schnackenburg, 46; W. Thiele, “Beobachtungen zum Comma Johanneum (1 Joh. 5, 7f.),” ZNW 50, 1959, 61–73), but this does not affect the basic issue. Elsewhere the Latin text of 1 John shows other interpolations and alterations (2:17; 4:3; 5:6, 20).

I. Howard Marshall, The Epistles of John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978).​

Robert Dabney on the Greek grammar of 1 John 5.7

TrueCovenanter.com: The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek, by R.L. Dabney.

 

[SavedByGrace]

The words you seem to be referring to appear for the first time in 1215.

See:

The words “in heaven: the Father, the word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth” are usually said to be found in only four Greek MSS (61 88mg 629 635ms—so Metzger, 717; but UBS gives 61 88mg 429mg 629 636mg 918). None of these is earlier than the fourteenth century. The passage is quoted by none of the Greek church writers, and it first appears in Greek in a council report of 1215. None of the ancient versions of the New Testament contains the words, except the Latin version. The words appear, with considerable variation (including inversion of the order of the two sets of witnesses), in some Old Latin and Vulgate MSS, but not in the earliest form of the Old Latin or in Jerome’s edition of the Vulgate. They are attested by a number of Latin writers, the earliest certain reference being in the Liber Apologeticus of the Spanish writer Priscillian (ob. c. 385) or his follower Instantius. It is wholly improbable that such a weakly attested reading is an original part of the text of 1 John, and the added words cause a break in the sense. The addition appears to rest on allegorical exegesis of the three witnesses in the text; it was probably written in the margin of a Latin MS and then found its way into the text; later still the order of the two sets of witnesses was inverted and the text was translated back into Greek and was included in a few Greek MSS. Erasmus rejected it from the first two editions of his Greek New Testament; he said that he would include it if a single Greek MS could be produced containing the words. Such a MS (61), probably written in 1520, was produced, and Erasmus had to keep his word in his third edition (1522), although he protested forcibly; subsequently, he again omitted the words. But the words remained in the Vulgate, and modern Roman Catholic translations, based on the Vulgate rather than the Greek text, included them (so Knox); the most recent Roman Catholic translations (such as the Jerusalem Bible) omit them. There remains some doubt as to how far back the variant reading can be traced in the Latin tradition (Schnackenburg, 46; W. Thiele, “Beobachtungen zum Comma Johanneum (1 Joh. 5, 7f.),” ZNW 50, 1959, 61–73), but this does not affect the basic issue. Elsewhere the Latin text of 1 John shows other interpolations and alterations (2:17; 4:3; 5:6, 20).

I. Howard Marshall, The Epistles of John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978).​

1215? What utter RUBBISH

 

[The Archangel]

1215? What utter RUBBISH

So... simply saying "Rubbish" means you're right and have proved your point by fiat. Yeah, that works.

The Archangel

 

[SavedByGrace]

So... simply saying "Rubbish" means you're right and have proved your point by fiat. Yeah, that works.

The Archangel

When we have actual quotes from Tertullian and Cyprian who both knew Greek and Latin in the THIRD century. 1215 is LUNACY

 

[The Archangel]

When we have actual quotes from Tertullian and Cyprian who both knew Greek and Latin in the THIRD century. 1215 is LUNACY

But... Do we have those quotes??

The Archangel

 

[SavedByGrace]

But... Do we have those quotes??

The Archangel

Cyprian and Tertullian on 1 John 5:7

 

[The Archangel]

Cyprian and Tertullian on 1 John 5:7

But... those aren't manuscripts.

The Archangel

 

[Conan]

1215? What utter RUBBISH

Thats when they are first known in Greek. A translation of a Latin council into Greek.