The 'Johannine Comma', does it belong in the Bible?

[Origen]

when we want what caesar wrote, would we try to get as close to his original writings

Of course.

and view those copied into Latin as preferable to those recopied into English now

No doubt.

Would we not want to get to the Koine Greek copies closest in age to the originals
instead of relying upon Syrian or Coptic copiesmade centuries afterwards

Correct.

 

[Yeshua1]

Of course.


No doubt.

Correct.

Stills that those holding to KJVO does not worry about any of these textual concerns and issues, as to them the kjv translators had same inspiration from God as the Apostles did, so why worry about which text was correct and best, s regardless, they got to their final perfect product by God Himself?

 

[Hobie]

They didn't. I coverd this in post 14. You must not have read it.

First Cyprian:

(1) Cyprian has "the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." The Comma has "the Father, Word, and the Holy Spirit."

(2) Also note in the Latin before each noun there is an "and" (= et). The Greek text does not.

(4) The clause "and these three are one" appears in 1 John 5:8. It is part of the text and does not require the Comma.

(5) Specifically note what Cyprian does not have: (1) "For there are three that bear record in heaven," and (2) "the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood, and these three agree in one."

Now here is Cyprian's Latin and the Vulgate side by side.

ego et Pater unum sumus. Et iterum Pater et filio et spiritu sancto scriptum est: Et hi tres unum sunt (Cyprian)
et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra: spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis; et hi tres unum sunt (Vulgate)

It is not hard to see they don't really match.


Second, this is one so-called example of the Comma in Tertullian. He writes:

"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent persons, one from the other, which three are one, not one [person], as it is said, "I and my Father are One."

Here is the Comma.
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: 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.

As I pointed out in post 14, the sections in bold are found in the Greek text. It is the section in red which is in disputed. This information is necessary to know exactly what is and what is not the Comma. The Greek text has "For there are three that bear record the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood, and these three agree in one." This is no dispute concerning that.

However clearly this is not a quote of the Comma. In fact it is not even a quote at all. Tertullian is expressing his view of the trinity:

"Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete... ...which three are one, not one [person]"

This is a clear example of people twisting Tertullian's words in order to force them to fit the Comma in some way.

This is the problem with those who support the Comma. Any phrase, or word that might be even close in the Church fathers they seize no matter how flimsy the resemblance. Often to support their claim they will point to the phrase "these three are one." While this phrase is quote by many Church fathers IT IS NOT PART OF THE DISPUTED SECTION. That section is not part of the disputed text.

A more serious problem is the supporters of the Comma want to change the Greek text because of some quotes from the Latin Church fathers and the Latin text. As I said before, from a text critical perspective, that is a massively poor idea to even think of correcting the Greek text by following the Church fathers or Latin text. If you open the door to those sources for possible which are not found in the Greek text, it will lead to other reading which were never part of the Greek manuscript tradition. Might as well change the Greek text because of the Coptic, Syriac, or Ethiopic versions etc.

So you do not accept what John declares ...
John 1:1-3,14
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made...
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

 

[Origen]

So you do not accept what John declares ...
John 1:1-3,14
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made...
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Now that is funny. I provide evidence that the Comma is not part of 1 John 5 and you somehow turn that into that I don't believe what John wrote in his Gospel.

Yes, I believe what John wrote. I believe that the Word was with God, is God, and became flesh. I believe that in that spite of the fact that the Comma does not belong in the text of 1 John 5. I would believe what John wrote even if there was no Cyprian.

 

[Dave G]

"The 'Johannine Comma', does it belong in the Bible?"

Yes, it does.
It is the word of God.

 

[Hobie]

"The 'Johannine Comma', does it belong in the Bible?"

Yes, it does.
It is the word of God.

Very true, but many have allowed the influence of Gnosticism to intrude...

 

[Origen]

Very true, but many have allowed the influence of Gnosticism to intrude...

 

[Rob_BW]

Very true, but many have allowed the influence of Gnosticism to intrude...

Baseless slander.

 

[Yeshua1]

Very true, but many have allowed the influence of Gnosticism to intrude...

You mean the results of now having better Greek support sources than than avaibale at time to Kjv team?

Very true, but many have allowed the influence of Gnosticism to intrude...

How is using better source texts in determining whether it should be included or not being under Gnostic influencing?

 

[Logos1560]

. Preservation of scripture does not demand that every reading be preserved in the original language of inspiration - only that the reading be preserved, such as the Comma was in the Old Latin/Vulgate Latin and Waldensian vernaculars which were based off the Old Latin"

You do not demonstrate from the Scriptures that the preservation of the actual words that were given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles were to be preserved in a Latin translation instead of in the languages in which they were given.