 |
| GA 641: The Comma Johanneum is absent. |
The other
manuscripts do not have the Comma
Johanneum in the text; the Comma
Johanneum is written in the margin instead. Hixson’s post includes pictures of the
relevant portions of these manuscripts, so I will only spend a little time
reviewing them here:
● In GA
221, a manuscript from the 900s, the Comma
Johanneum is written in the margin, but it appears that the Comma Johanneum arrived there rather
recently, considering that (as
Hixson reports) a description of GA 221 made in 1854 says that the
manuscript does not have the Comma
Johanneum, with nothing said about a margin-note.
● In GA
177, the Comma Johanneum is written
in the upper margin of the page and is identified by its verse-number, which
means that the Comma Johanneum was
placed in the margin of GA 177 sometime after 1550. (Dan
Wallace noticed the Comma Johanneum
in the margin of GA 177 in 2010.) Hixson offers a more precise date,
however: the annotator of this
manuscript left his name in it: Ignatius
Hardt, who was born in 1749. Guided by a
little more data about Hardt’s career, Hixson estimates that Hardt wrote the Comma Johanneum in the margin of 177 no
earlier than the 1770s.
● In GA 88,
a manuscript from the 1100s, the Comma
Johanneum appears in the margin with almost no clues about who added it or
when. Almost no clues: as Hixson observed, whereas copyists
routinely contracted sacred names such as “Father” and “Spirit,” in the
margin-note in 88 these words are written out in full, which may indicate that
the person writing them was using as his source a printed book, rather than a
manuscript.
● In GA 429, a manuscript from the
1300s, the Comma Johanneum is written
in the margin, and it matches up with the text of the Comma Johanneum printed in Erasmus’ third edition – because, as
Hixson explains, Erasmus’ third edition was its source.
● In GA
636, a manuscript from the 1400s, the Comma
Johanneum is written in the margin, and is missing the articles, which is
consistent with a scenario in which it was translated from Latin.
Let’s
review the implications of this evidence:
First, there is no Greek manuscript made before the 1500s in which the Comma Johanneum appears in the text of
First John in a form which does not appear to be derived from Latin; strictly
speaking, the exact text of the Comma
Johanneum that appears in the Textus
Receptus does not appear in the text of any Greek manuscript made before
the 1500s. Second, in the Greek
manuscripts in which the Comma Johanneum
appears in the margin, it either appears to be derived from Latin, or else it
appears to have been copied from a printed source.
Now let’s
look on the other side of the equation.
Here, from researcher Timothy Berg, is a list of the Greek manuscripts that contain First John but do not have the Comma Johanneum in the text:
Manuscripts Produced
Before the 700s: 01, 03, 02, 048,
0296
Manuscripts Produced
in the 700s-800s: 018, 020, 025,
049, 0142, 1424, 1862, 1895, 2464
Manuscripts Assigned
to the 900s: 044, 056, 82, 93, 175,
181, 221, 307, 326, 398, 450, 454, 456, 457, 602, 605, 619, 627, 832, 920,
1066, 1175, 1720, 1739, 1829, 1836, 1837, 1841, 1845, 1851, 1871, 1874, 1875,
1880, 1891, 2125, 2147,
Manuscripts Assigned
to the 1000s: 35, 36, 2, 42, 43, 81,
104, 131, 133, 142, 177, 250, 302, 325, 312, 314, 424, 436, 451, 458, 459,
462, 464, 465, 466, 491, 506, 517, 547, 606, 607, 617, 623, 624, 635, 638, 639,
641, 699, 796, 901, 910, 919, 945, 1162, 1243, 1244, 1270, 1311, 1384,
1521, 1668, 1724, 1730, 1735, 1738, 1828, 1835, 1838, 1846, 1847, 1849, 1854,
1870, 1888, 2138, 2191, 2344, 2475, 2587, 2723, 2746
Manuscripts Assigned
to the 1100s: 3, 38, 1, 57, 88, 94,
97, 103, 105, 110, 180, 203, 226, 256, 319, 321, 323, 330,
337, 365, 431, 440, 442, 452, 618, 620, 622, 625, 632, 637, 656, 720, 876, 917,
922, 927, 1058, 1115, 1127, 1241, 1245, 1315, 1319, 1359, 1360, 1448, 1490,
1505, 1573, 1611, 1646, 1673, 1718, 1737, 1740, 1743, 1752, 1754, 1850, 1853,
1863, 1867, 1868, 1872, 1885, 1889, 1893, 1894, 1897, 2127, 2143, 2186, 2194, 2289,
2298, 2401, 2412, 2541, 2625, 2712, 2718, 2736, 2805
Manuscripts Assigned
to the 1200s: 4, 5, 6, 51, 204, 206,
172, 141, 218, 234, 263, 327, 328, 378, 383, 384, 390, 460, 468, 469, 479, 483,
496, 592, 601, 614, 643, 665, 757, 912, 914, 915, 941, 999, 1069, 1070,
1072, 1094, 1103, 1107, 1149, 1161, 1242, 1251, 1292, 1297, 1352, 1398, 1400,
1404, 1456, 1501, 1509, 1523, 1563, 1594, 1595, 1597, 1609, 1642, 1719, 1722,
1727, 1728, 1731, 1736, 1758, 1780, 1827, 1839, 1842, 1843, 1852, 1855, 1857,
1858, 1860, 1864, 1865, 1873, 2180, 2374, 2400, 2404, 2423, 2483, 2502, 2558,
2627, 2696
Manuscripts Assigned
to the 1300s: 18, 62, 76, 189, 201,
209, 216, 223, 254, 308, 363, 367, 386, 393, 394, 404, 421, 425,
429, 453, 489, 498, 582, 603, 604, 608, 621,
628, 630, 633, 634, 680, 743, 794, 808, 824, 913, 921,
928, 935, 959, 986, 996, 1022, 1040, 1067, 1075, 1099, 1100, 1102, 1106,
1248, 1249, 1354, 1390, 1409, 1482, 1495, 1503, 1524, 1548, 1598, 1599, 1610, 1618,
1619, 1622, 1637, 1643, 1661, 1678, 1717, 1723, 1725, 1726, 1732, 1733, 1741,
1742, 1744, 1746, 1747, 1753, 1761, 1762, 1765, 1769, 1831, 1832, 1856,
1859, 1866, 1877, 1881, 1882, 1886, 1890, 1892, 1899, 1902, 2080, 2085, 2086,
2197, 2200, 2261, 2279, 2356, 2431, 2466, 2484, 2492, 2494, 2508, 2511,
2527, 2626, 2675, 2705, 2716, 2774, 2777
Manuscripts Assigned
to the 1400s: 69, 102, 149, 205,
322, 368, 385, 400, 432, 444, 467, 615, 616, 631, 636, 664, 801, 1003, 1105,
1247, 1250, 1367, 1405, 1508, 1626, 1628, 1636, 1649, 1656, 1729, 1745, 1750,
1751, 1757, 1763, 1767, 1830, 1876, 1896, 2131, 2221, 2288, 2352, 2495, 2523,
2554, 2652, 2653, 2691, 2704
Manuscripts Assigned
to the 1500s and Later: 90, 296,
522, 1702, 1704, 1749, 1768, 1840, 1844, 1861, 2130, 2218, 2255, 2378,
2501, 2516, 2544, 1101, 1721, 1748, 1869, 1903, 2243, 2674, 2776, 2473, 1104
With this
data in mind, let’s consider a few extracts from a defense of the Comma Johanneum
recently offered by Taylor DeSoto of Agros Reformed Baptist Church in
Arizona:
► “There is manuscript evidence for it.” True, but as Hixson’s analysis shows, the Greek manuscript evidence for the Comma Johanneum is sparse, late, and shows clear signs of being derived either from Latin or from a printed text.
► “There is manuscript evidence for it.” True, but as Hixson’s analysis shows, the Greek manuscript evidence for the Comma Johanneum is sparse, late, and shows clear signs of being derived either from Latin or from a printed text.
► “It has more manuscript evidence support than let’s just say,
the Gospel of Mark without 16:9-20.” That
is not quite the case; there are three Greek manuscripts in which Mark 16 ends
at 16:8 (À,
B,
and 304 – all with other anomalous features),
so technically, the quantities are equal.
But it would be foolish to use simple quantities to frame this evidence,
because B
and À
are the two earliest manuscripts of Mark 16 known to exist, while GA 629 is from
the mid-1300s, 61 is from the early 1500s, and 918 is from the 1570s, and the
rest, as Hixson’s data shows, are either dependent on Latin, or else extremely
late.
As a defender of the genuineness of
Mark 16:9-20, I do not grant to B
and À the
level of weight that was given to them by Westcott and Hort (and which
continues, in some circles, to be assumed).
But it is not just the testimony of B
and À
which we ought to consider. It is also
the testimony of 02, 048, 0296, 018, 020, 025, 049, 0142, 1424, 1862,
1895, 2464, 044, 056, 82, 93, 175, 181, 221, 307, 326, 398, 450, 454, 456, 457,
602, 605, 619, 627, 832, 920, 1066, 1175, 1720, 1739, 1829, 1836, 1837, 1841,
1845, 1851, 1871, 1874, 1875, 1880, 1891, 2125, 2147, 35, 36, 2, 42, 43, 81,
104, 131, 133, 142, 177, 250, 302, 325, 312, 314, 424, 436, 451, 458, 459,
462, 464, 465, 466, 491, 506, 517, 547, 606, 607, 617, 623, 624, 635, 638, 639,
641, 699, 796, 901, 910, 919, 945, 1162, 1243, 1244, 1270, 1311, 1384,
1521, 1668, 1724, 1730, 1735, 1738, 1828, 1835, 1838, 1846, 1847, 1849, 1854,
1870, 1888, 2138, 2191, 2344, 2475, 2587, 2723, 2746, 3, 38, 1, 57, 88,
94, 97, 103, 105, 110, 180, 203, 226, 256, 319, 321, 323,
330, 337, 365, 431, 440, 442, 452, 618, 620, 622, 625, 632, 637, 656, 720, 876,
917, 922, 927, 1058, 1115, 1127, 1241, 1245, 1315, 1319, 1359, 1360, 1448,
1490, 1505, 1573, 1611, 1646, 1673, 1718, 1737, 1740, 1743, 1752, 1754, 1850,
1853, 1863, 1867, 1868, 1872, 1885, 1889, 1893, 1894, 1897, 2127, 2143, 2186,
2194, 2289, 2298, 2401, 2412, 2541, 2625, 2712, 2718, 2736, 2805, and so
forth.
► “Those who attack the authenticity of this reading
appeal to the assumption that it was introduced from a Latin manuscript.” Mr. DeSoto
writes as if there is no basis for this “assumption.” However, it is not an assumption; it is a
deduction from evidence: in the Old
Latin text of First John 5:8 (as
I have explained already in an earlier post), the nouns are typically transposed
to the order water-blood-spirit,
which is conducive to a figurative interpretation in which the water represents
the Father, the blood represents the Son, and the Spirit represents, of course,
the Holy Spirit. And that interpretation
is the Comma Johanneum – an interpretive gloss that was inserted into the
Old Latin text (and from there into the later medieval Vulgate text). Its origin is linked to the transposition: in evidence uninfluenced by Latin, where the
transposition is absent, the Comma
Johanneum is absent as well.
► “Can 1 John 5:7 be said to have been
definitively introduced from the Latin, as though it were never found in a
Greek manuscript?” Yes, it can.
All one needs to do is observe the evidence and think it through: everything is completely consistent with precisely
that scenario. Just look at the Latin
text that runs parallel to the Greek text in 629, and look at the absence of
the articles, and look at the absence of the Comma Johanneum in 02, 048, 0296, 018, 020, 025, 049, 0142,
1424, 1862, 1895, 2464, 044, 056, 82, 93, 175, 181, 221, 307, 326, 398, 450,
454, 456, 457, 602, 605, 619, 627, 832, 920, 1066, 1175, 1720, 1739, 1829,
1836, 1837, 1841, 1845, 1851, 1871, 1874, 1875, 1880, 1891, 2125, 2147, 35, 36,
2, 42, 43, 81, 104, 131, 133, 142, 177, 250, 302, 325, 312, 314, 424, 436,
451, 458, 459, 462, 464, 465, 466, 491, 506, 517, 547, 606, 607, 617, 623, 624,
635, 638, 639, 641, 699, 796, 901, 910, 919, 945, 1162, 1243, 1244,
1270, 1311, 1384, 1521, 1668, 1724, 1730, 1735, 1738, 1828, 1835, 1838, 1846,
1847, 1849, 1854, 1870, 1888, 2138, 2191, 2344, 2475, 2587, 2723, 2746, 3,
38, 1, 57, 88, 94, 97, 103, 105, 110, 180, 203, 226, 256,
319, 321, 323, 330, 337, 365, 431, 440, 442, 452, 618, 620, 622, 625, 632, 637,
656, 720, 876, 917, 922, 927, 1058, 1115, 1127, 1241, 1245, 1315, 1319, 1359,
1360, 1448, 1490, 1505, 1573, 1611, 1646, 1673, 1718, 1737, 1740, 1743, 1752,
1754, 1850, 1853, 1863, 1867, 1868, 1872, 1885, 1889, 1893, 1894, 1897, 2127,
2143, 2186, 2194, 2289, 2298, 2401, 2412, 2541, 2625, 2712, 2718, 2736, 2805,
and so forth. Then ask, what more could I possibly ask for, if I
were asking for evidence that the Comma
Johanneum drifted into a few Greek manuscripts due to the actions of copyists who wanted to
make their Greek copies conform more precisely to the meaning of their Latin
copies?
Nevertheless Mr. DeSoto states, “I have yet to see a scholar actually
produce a manuscript, or historical source from antiquity which demonstrates
that this verse was added from the Latin.” It seems to me that he is simply
resisting the plain implications of the evidence.
In addition. Mr. DeSoto resorts to a
grammatical argument (offered in a past generation by commentator Robert
Dabney) as evidence for the genuineness of the Comma Johanneum – and then states, “The only people I have seen
stand against this grammatical argument are people who self-admittedly are
rusty in Greek.” However, this whole
approach is a nothingburger, as demonstrated already by Dr. Barry Hofstetter in
the 2018 post, The
Comma Johanneum and Greek Grammar.
Furthermore, Mr. DeSoto
misrepresents the evidence when he states that “Jerome and Nazianzes comment on it.” By “Jerome” he appears to mean the author of
the Preface to the Canonical Epistles –
an author who (as
I have already pointed out) used the transposed form of First John
5:8. And by saying that “Gregory of
Nazianzes comments on it,” he seems to be referring to the statement by Gregory of
Nazianzus where, after stating that John says “that there are three that
bear witness, the Spirit and the water and the blood” – as we find verse 8 in
most manuscripts, without the phrase “on
earth” – he bring up a frivolous objection from a posited grammarian only
in order to tear it down, stating “You see how completely your argument from
con-numeration has completely broken down, and is refuted by all these
instances,” and he goes on from there – not once citing any part of the Comma Johanneum.
It is simply false to claim that
Gregory of Nazianzus commented on the Comma
Johanneum. He did not do so. Furthermore, in the very next chapter of his
composition, Gregory of Nazianzus refers to the Father, and the Son, and the
Holy Spirit, without referencing the Comma
Johanneum.
Mr. DeSoto did not leave that
falsehood without company. He also
claimed, “The Comma Johanneum was
seated at 1 John 5:7 until evangelical textual critics began deconstructing the
Scriptures.” As long as one ignores the
testimony of 02, 048, 0296, 018, 020, 025, 049, 0142, 1424, 1862, 1895,
2464, 044, 056, 82, 93, 175, 181, 221, 307, 326, 398, 450, 454, 456, 457, 602,
605, 619, 627, 832, 920, 1066, 1175, 1720, 1739, 1829, 1836, 1837, 1841, 1845,
1851, 1871, 1874, 1875, 1880, 1891, 2125, 2147, 35, 36, 2, 42, 43, 81, 104,
131, 133, 142, 177, 250, 302, 325, 312, 314, 424, 436, 451, 458, 459, 462,
464, 465, 466, 491, 506, 517, 547, 606, 607, 617, 623, 624,
635, 638, 639, 641, 699, 796, 901, 910, 919, 945, 1162, 1243, 1244,
1270, 1311, 1384, 1521, 1668, 1724, 1730, 1735, 1738, 1828, 1835, 1838, 1846,
1847, 1849, 1854, 1870, 1888, 2138, 2191, 2344, 2475, 2587, 2723, 2746, 3,
38, 1, 57, 88, 94, 97, 103, 105, 110, 180, 203, 226, 256,
319, 321, 323, 330, 337, 365, 431, 440, 442, 452, 618, 620, 622, 625, 632, 637,
656, 720, 876, 917, 922, 927, 1058, 1115, 1127, 1241, 1245, 1315, 1319, 1359, 1360,
1448, 1490, 1505, 1573, 1611, 1646, 1673, 1718, 1737, 1740, 1743, 1752, 1754,
1850, 1853, 1863, 1867, 1868, 1872, 1885, 1889, 1893, 1894, 1897, 2127, 2143,
2186, 2194, 2289, 2298, 2401, 2412, 2541, 2625, 2712, 2718, 2736, 2805, and so
forth, that is something that can be honestly said. Yes, if you resolve to be blind to these
Greek manuscripts, and focus instead, like a horse wearing blinders, upon
interpolated and transposed Latin texts, and on a few late manuscripts
influenced by them, then you can say that you have a basis for keeping the Comma Johanneum in your text of First
John. But if you are going to say that it was a good thing that at some point
in the past, the Latin text was on the throne, and that the Greek text was usurped
and pushed to the side, and that such ought to be the case today, then you thus
are not actually recognizing the authority of the original text.
Finally,
after asking a series of rhetorical questions, Mr. DeSoto asks, “Do we gain anything by removing this passage?”
To which I say, first, that this is a trick question, because when we
look at 02, 048, 0296, 018, 020, 025, 049, 0142, 1424, 1862, 1895, 2464,
044, 056, 82, 93, 175, 181, 221, 307, 326, 398, 450, 454, 456, 457, 602, 605,
619, 627, 832, 920, 1066, 1175, 1720, 1739, 1829, 1836, 1837, 1841, 1845, 1851,
1871, 1874, 1875, 1880, 1891, 2125, 2147, 35, 36, 2, 42, 43, 81, 104, 131, 133,
142, 177, 250, 302, 325, 312, 314, 424, 436, 451, 458, 459, 462, 464, 465,
466, 491, 506, 517, 547, 606, 607, 617, 623, 624, 635, 638, 639, 641,
699, 796, 901, 910, 919, 945, 1162, 1243, 1244, 1270, 1311, 1384, 1521, 1668,
1724, 1730, 1735, 1738, 1828, 1835, 1838, 1846, 1847, 1849, 1854, 1870, 1888,
2138, 2191, 2344, 2475, 2587, 2723, 2746, 3, 38, 1, 57, 88, 94, 97, 103,
105, 110, 180, 203, 226, 256, 319, 321, 323, 330, 337, 365, 431,
440, 442, 452, 618, 620, 622, 625, 632, 637, 656, 720, 876, 917, 922, 927,
1058, 1115, 1127, 1241, 1245, 1315, 1319, 1359, 1360, 1448, 1490, 1505, 1573,
1611, 1646, 1673, 1718, 1737, 1740, 1743, 1752, 1754, 1850, 1853, 1863, 1867,
1868, 1872, 1885, 1889, 1893, 1894, 1897, 2127, 2143, 2186, 2194, 2289, 2298,
2401, 2412, 2541, 2625, 2712, 2718, 2736, 2805, and so forth, nobody is
removing the passage; it is not there to begin with.
But taking
the question as it stands: yes we certainly do gain something. First, we gain a purer, less corrupted text,
which more closely resembles the original inspired text. Mr. DeSoto recently stated in
another post, “We need to receive the text as it has been passed down.” I point out again that in the text of First
John 5:7-8 that has been passed down in 99.2% of the handed-down Greek
manuscripts, the Comma Johanneum is
unsupported. I point out again that the
non-inclusion of the Comma Johanneum is supported. I point out again
that at this particular point, the Textus
Receptus does not represent the text-that-was-handed-down, or the Byzantine
Text, or the “Antiochan line.” Yet this
fact seems to have no effect on Mr. DeSoto’s position. It seems abundantly clear that his goal is
neither to defend the original text nor the text that has been handed down in
Greek manuscripts; his agenda is to defend the contents of the Textus Receptus.
(In addition, one must ask, “Which
text that has been passed down?”, because the manuscripts that have
survived to the present day do not always agree. When asking, “Is this reading authoritative?” the decisive sub-question
is not, Is it popular?, or “Is it familiar to a particular group of
people?” (such as English readers of the KJV, or formulators of a particular creed from the 1600s), but, “Is it original?.)
Second, we lose the stigma of
desperation which is the inevitable consequence of treating an interpolation as
if deserves to be a foundation for Christian doctrine, as if the Textus Receptus must be right, and all those other manuscripts must be wrong. It is morally
wrong and strategically unwise to employ falsehoods – such as the false claim
that John wrote the Comma Johanneum –
in the service of the truth. To continue
to do so is to run the risk that onlookers will conclude that the orthodox view
of the Trinity is so weak that its defenders must adopt non-original readings
in order to defend it. I would point out
that few early theologians were as Trinitarian as Gregory of Nazianzus and
Cyril of Alexandria – yet they did not use the Comma Johanneum, because
it was not the Greek texts that they
used.
Third, we gain the time that would
otherwise be wasted continuing to discuss a textual variant which ought to be
easily recognized as an interpolation.
Readers are invited to double-check the data in this post.
85 comments:
Hi James,
Are there any differences between the critical apparatus provided by Timothy Berg and the apparatus contained within Text und Textwert? I didn't have the patience to check every entry, but everyone I did is listed in Text und Textwert as well. I'm wondering if Mr. Berg has furnished the apparatus with more data. Thanks
James,
First, stellar work. Second unfortunately, as pointed out by Dr. Riddle on his blog, defenders of the ‘confessional text’ (TR) do not base their beliefs about the TR on manuscript evidence. JTR points out that any reference to manuscript evidence is just a response to critics who claim their isn’t any. Their, CT/TR advocates, belief that the TR is the ‘Divinely Preserved Text’ is based on the belief that it was the text used by the Reformers. Therefore, whether it comes from the Latin Text or only has limited late Greek support or that there are differences in the TR itself do not matter. Finally, these positions demonstrate that the TR-Only advocates beliefs are an apriori decision, one which is not based on evidence, but on a theoretical deduction.
Tim
Thank you so much for posting this article. Now we can easily list the Greek Manuscripts against the extra non-original words from the Latin Vulgate.
Matthew, unless I made some mistakes (which is certainly possible) then the list should be the same as the TuT entry, with the minor difference that I tried to organize them into categories approximating the century of their approximate date of composition. It has been several years since I wrote out that chart, (https://www.dropbox.com/s/vwlyw6q8pi553ff/I%20John%205-7%20Chart%20PDF.pdf?dl=0) and I have never carefully double checked all the data. If I recall correctly, the Greek manuscript data all came from the TuT entry, which I typed out by hand from a iPhone shot of the pages in TuT, (which I don't own, but had accessed in a library=), which I then sorted by approximate date (iirrc, using the entires in the NA or K-liste), which I then pasted into fields in the chart. Assuming I made no mistakes in that process, it should be the same data as that from TuT, simply in different order. My goal was partly the same as the recent blog by Elijah (though I didn't and don't have his skill) - to show that people are often citing as "evidence for the KJV/TR" witnesses that in fact don't support the KJV/TR, and to present in a single, accessible visual the incredible sparseness of evidence that is being cited to support the CJ in the KJV/TR. There is some additional data I should have included, and I didn't note variants in the Latin Tradition when I should have, and I realized later that I should have used a color scheme to represent geographical dispersion as well. But despite it's minor inaccuracies or areas of incompleteness, I hope it can still serve that basic purpose.
Mr. Berg,
Thanks for the reply! You saved me a lot of time. I wasn't sure if you added any new manuscript evidence (and wasn't looking forward to checking all 500 or so), so thank you again for the reply.
James Snapp
"The earliest is GA 629, a Latin-Greek manuscript dated to 1362."
For context, any discussion of Ottobonianus should also discuss the earlier Lateran Council, where Latin and Greek forms of the heavenly witnesses were published.
The pre-Erasmian restoration of the heavenly witnesses text to the Greek line included:
Lateran Council (1215)
Manuel Calecas (d. 1410)
Joseph Bryennius (c. 1350-1430)
There was a similar phenomenon in Armenian history, starting before the Synod of Sis (c. 1330).
All of this is important because of all the incorrect claims that Erasmus was working with a Greek vacuum on the heavenly witnesses verse.
Beyond that there are numerous Greek evidences from the earlier centuries. In fact, the one of which Erasmus was clearly aware, the Vulgate Prologue of Jerome, referring to Greek and Latin mss., caused Erasmus very great difficulties, he was totally flumoxxed. Erasmus, normally a big fan of Jerome, even accused him of forging the verse!
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY
Hi Steven,
How is this specific evidence to be veiwed in any way but weak? If we're looking for weight, number, continuity, preservation and possession, then:
Lateran Council (1215)
Manuel Calecas (d. 1410)
Joseph Bryennius (c. 1350-1430)
...a similar phenomenon in Armenian history, starting before the Synod of Sis (c. 1330).
--And 629 is not it!
What is this proposed evidence for a: "pre-Erasmian restoration of the heavenly witnesses text to the Greek line"--in comparison to the ACTUAL preservation and possession demonstrated within the same Greek line during the exact same duration?
i.e.{ Manuscripts Assigned to the 1200s: 4, 5, 6, 51, 204, 206, 172, 141, 218, 234, 263, 327, 328, 378, 383, 384, 390, 460, 468, 469, 479, 483, 496, 592, 601, 614, 643, 665, 757, 912, 914, 915, 941, 999, 1069, 1070, 1072, 1094, 1103, 1107, 1149, 1161, 1242, 1251, 1292, 1297, 1352, 1398, 1400, 1404, 1456, 1501, 1509, 1523, 1563, 1594, 1595, 1597, 1609, 1642, 1719, 1722, 1727, 1728, 1731, 1736, 1758, 1780, 1827, 1839, 1842, 1843, 1852, 1855, 1857, 1858, 1860, 1864, 1865, 1873, 2180, 2374, 2400, 2404, 2423, 2483, 2502, 2558, 2627, 2696
Manuscripts Assigned to the 1300s: 18, 62, 76, 189, 201, 209, 216, 223, 254, 308, 363, 367, 386, 393, 394, 404, 421, 425, 429, 453, 489, 498, 582, 603, 604, 608, 621, 628, 630, 633, 634, 680, 743, 794, 808, 824, 913, 921, 928, 935, 959, 986, 996, 1022, 1040, 1067, 1075, 1099, 1100, 1102, 1106, 1248, 1249, 1354, 1390, 1409, 1482, 1495, 1503, 1524, 1548, 1598, 1599, 1610, 1618, 1619, 1622, 1637, 1643, 1661, 1678, 1717, 1723, 1725, 1726, 1732, 1733, 1741, 1742, 1744, 1746, 1747, 1753, 1761, 1762, 1765, 1769, 1831, 1832, 1856, 1859, 1866, 1877, 1881, 1882, 1886, 1890, 1892, 1899, 1902, 2080, 2085, 2086, 2197, 2200, 2261, 2279, 2356, 2431, 2466, 2484, 2492, 2494, 2508, 2511, 2527, 2626, 2675, 2705, 2716, 2774, 2777
Manuscripts Assigned to the 1400s: 69, 102, 149, 205, 322, 368, 385, 400, 432, 444, 467, 615, 616, 631, 636, 664, 801, 1003, 1105, 1247, 1250, 1367, 1405, 1508, 1626, 1628, 1636, 1649, 1656, 1729, 1745, 1750, 1751, 1757, 1763, 1767, 1830, 1876, 1896, 2131, 2221, 2288, 2352, 2495, 2523, 2554, 2652, 2653, 2691, 2704 }
"For context, any discussion of Ottobonianus should also discuss..."
**The critical apparatus of the Greek manuscript tradition listed above.** Then place it over against the Lateran Council (1215), Manuel Calecas (d. 1410), Joseph Bryennius (c. 1350-1430), and the: "similar phenomenon in Armenian history, starting before the Synod of Sis (c. 1330)."--should it not? If so, how then could the resultant judgment be viewed as anything but negative towards your position?
Hi Matthew,
You seem to have totally misunderstood my post, which is to give context to the pre-Erasmian period and the specific manuscripts studied by Elijah Hixson. Codex Ottobonianus should be discussed in the context of the Lateran Council.
And I would like to work to undo the damage of 100 writers who pretend that Erasmus brought the heavenly witnesses into the Greek in a vacuum. Yawn.
And I am limiting discussion to that immediate period, bypassing a large number of Greek evidences, and dual-language evidences, in the earlier years.
In that period from around the Lateran Council to Erasmus there were dozens of commentaries using the heavenly witnesses in the Latin. So any good scholar of that era would be well informed about the verse, and doctrinal and textual viewpoints.
And I know of no objections from any specific Greek source saying "hey, that is not really scripture". One Greek scholium did try to explain the solecism in the Greek text through a Trinitarian exegesis.
Now, I hope to get back to some other elements from Elijah Hixson and James Snapp.
Thanks!
Steven
Steven,
I was offering context to the same exact period: Namely, the 13th,14th and 15th centuries. In which centuries you have brought forth the Lateran Council (1215), Calecas (d.1410), Bryennius (c.1350-1430) and the history surrounding the Synod of Sis (c. 1330) as some sort of pertinent context. Yet within the same exact period we have approx. 90 Greek mss. (13th century), 120 Greek mss. (14th century) and 50 Greek mss. (15th century). That's (approx.) 90 Greek manuscripts in the face of the Lateran Council, 120 in the face of the: "Armenian history, starting before the Synod of Sis (c. 1330).";and the greater part of the lives of both Calecas and Byrennius. Adding another 50 Greek mss. to cover their latter years and the 15th century in general. 260 mss. of crystal clear context! (And yet ms. 629 stands alone.)
You state: "All of this is important because of all the incorrect claims that Erasmus was working with a Greek vacuum on the heavenly witnesses verse."
~~Where can I find these incorrect claims?
Again you write: "In that period from around the Lateran Council to Erasmus there were dozens of commentaries using the heavenly witnesses in the Latin. So any good scholar of that era would be well informed about the verse, and doctrinal and textual viewpoints."
~~~Indeed, the verse was known due to it's existence within the Latin tradition; but not within the Greek.
Interesting conversation.
Now, we all know that the heavenly witnesses was largely absent from the Greek ms. line, and that there are many extant Greek mss after 700 (very few before).
(And I would agree 100% that any TR/AV defenders who try to show a continuing Greek ms. line are running up the wrong tree. And this error is often combined with the Stephanus ms. error. However, I have been singing this tune for a decade and more :). Thus, Ottobonianus should best be seen as likely an outgrowth from the Lateran Council. )
We do find strong Greek evidences and bi-language evidences before that 700 AD period. A truly fascinating study. So we have a type of inverted bell curve on the Greek evidences, a dip from c. 500-1200, and then a restitution.
==========
Here is a question for you, since you want to compare the Greek ms. omission to the uses of the verse in the Lateran Council, Calecas, Bryennios and the Armenian restoration.
Can you name any Greek commentaries that are evidence for absence? After all, mss. are often simply copying exercises, while the writings of church scholars can give us a better insight. We also have Latin mss. that discuss the early church writers on the verse.
Remember we have 100+ Latin writers using and discussing the heavenly witnesses. And some scholars were skilled in Latin and Greek. So after 1200, do you have any Greek commentary or writer evidences against the verse authenticity?
Thanks!
"We do find strong Greek evidences and bi-language evidences before that 700 AD period. A truly fascinating study. So we have a type of inverted bell curve on the Greek evidences, a dip from c. 500-1200, and then a restitution."
~~The problem I see here is that this hypothetical "restitution" is hardly a drop in the bucket in comparison to the Greek manuscript evidence of the 12-15th centuries. It seems to me that the 3rd edition of Erasmus (followed by Stephanus and Beza) is the more pivotal (and later) occurrence in this purposed "inverted bell curve".~~
"Here is a question for you, since you want to compare the Greek ms. omission to the uses of the verse in the Lateran Council, Calecas, Bryennios and the Armenian restoration."
~~It's not so much that I want to compare--as recognize the possession, continuity, and overall footprint of the completely unanimous testimony of the Greek ms. tradition within the first 160 years or so of the 13th & 14th centuries (until 629 is produced in 1362). Approx. 200 Greek mss. must of carried some significant geographical and social influence with them. How many villages, townships, countries, Churches, parishioners and hearts were affected by these manuscripts? How many eyes gazed upon them? How many scholars and preachers studied and read them? How many ears heard them, and how many souls were touched by them? This is vital to our understanding of possession. Erasmus making an edit in his third edition (via ms.61) cannot undermine this type of continuity and authority. The mother tongue is in possession here and the burden of truth is not sufficiently fulfilled by; ms.629,"the Lateran Council, Calecas, Bryennios and the Armenian restoration."...in my estimation.~~
"Remember we have 100+ Latin writers using and discussing the heavenly witnesses. And some scholars were skilled in Latin and Greek. So after 1200, do you have any Greek commentary or writer evidences against the verse authenticity?"
~~I don't think anyone ever felt the need to look (?), I surely haven't. It's not as if there's a shortage of evidence for the absence of the Comma. Secondly, I think it's to be expected that a far greater number of Latin commentaries were produced during the middle ages (when Rome ruled the known world) than Greek ones. And it's also to be expected that those Latin commentaries would contain the Comma-- because the Latin manuscripts contained it. Besides this, versional evidence is secondary in weight to the Greek manuscript evidence of the period.~~
~~In short, however one slices and dices it: I don't see the proper evidence to overthrow the possession maintained by the overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts here. Compiling late Latin commentaries can do very little damage to the 99% agreement within the mother tongue.~~
Matthew M. Rose
"to overthrow the possession maintained by the overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts here"
Possession? Of What?
Definitely not non-authenticity.
" versional evidence is secondary in weight to the Greek manuscript evidence of the period."
Greek ms. evidence after 1000 AD is a minor evidence. The wide-ranging 100+ Latin commentaries and references are, to Bible believers, more significant. Shared information on inclusion always trumps an omission or an evidence from silence. Both have to be considered minor compared to pointing back to the era of 50 AD to 500 AD.
This nose-counting shows you that there the Greek ms. tradition from about 700 to 1500 tended strongly to omission. (Only a handful of extant mss. before 700 AD, so the true window is from church writings.) One ms. simply copied another with the inherited omission corruption. There was an important correction at the Lateran Council, widely disseminated to the churches, but only mild impact on scribal ms. copying.
The major correction came when the Greek Orthodox accepted the Reformation Bible text, such as the 1643 Orthodox Confession of Faith by Peter Mogilas. Powerful confirmation, followed by a good number of Orthodox writers. The keepers of the Greek manuscripts clearly understood that their manuscripts had been subject to the common problem of omission corruption, at the heavenly witnesses and also at Acts 8:37.
The scholar writings in Latin and Greek give us more insight into church usage than simply scribal copied manuscripts. Thus, in Latin, massive evidences, dozens upon dozens of references and commentaries. In Greek, the Lateran Council, Calecas and Bryennius for inclusion vs. nobody known,as you acknowledge, for omission. In fact, the Latin mss. and notes (e.g. Regensburg, Corbie, Haymo) and Aquinas in the earlier medieval period give us special insight into the perspective on Jerome and Augustine and Athanasius and Fulgentius.
And the Matthaei scholium shows us that the Greeks were aware of their solecism, and looked for a way out. (The Apostle John must have been thinking of the Trinity when he spoke of the spirit, the water, and the blood!:) ) This was affirmed by Erasmus with his clever "torquebit grammaticos". Then we have the wonderful grammatical information from Eugenius Bulgarius (1718-1805), telling us about the short text solecism from the perspective of the totally fluent world-class Greek scholar.
The Latin tradition clearly goes back to antiquity, from the Ante-Nicene period.
Jerome's Prologue to the Canonical Epistles testifies to early Greek and Latin mss having the verse, and a doctrinal uneasiness that let to omission. The objections to authenticity were frivolous (Antoine Genoud) largely based on a lateness that poofed away with the c. 1850 Fuldensis discovery.
Early evidences from the Greek include Origen, Eusebius ad Marcellum (which discomfit de facto supports Jerome's charge of scribal omission), the Athanasius Disputation at Nicea and the Synopsis of Scripture.
Parallelism, harmony, grammatical and various 'internal' evidences powerfully show the Greek text must have been the source of the Latin. James Snapp used to show some additional such evidences from Nathaniel Ellsworth Cornwall, these evidences are actually massive and mutually corroborative.
Nose-counting the Greek mss. starting around 1000 AD is funny, since it shows the textcrit error of over-reliance on one minor evidence. Elijah Hixson has been clueless on the heavenly witnesses evidences, since he was subject to the same textcrit indoctrination.
Time to study and learn!
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY
"Possession? Of What?
Definitely not non-authenticity."
Absolutely, unless you are seeking a non-Greek (i.e. Latin) text.
Steven, most of your comments and conclusions are very subjective and open to interpretation. Regretfully, I have to disagree with your assessment of the evidence, and the subsequent conclusions you have made. With that said: is there some methodology or set of principles that you follow or apply to the external/internal evidences when adjudicating between variant readings?
Hi everyone. This post is not to argue one way or another on the JC veracity, nor do I pretend to be a scholar, but I do have a very interesting discovery that I believe will interest you all (please read all the way to the end). Many years ago, while studying at Calvin Seminary in Grand Rapids, Michigan, I wrote a paper on the Cana Miracle (Jn 2:1-11). In that poorly written paper I tried to lay out evidence proving that the Cana Miracle story was written as an allegory. My main discovery (and there are several important discoveries in the paper) was John's symbolic use of the word "water" and his source material. In short, John uses the word "water" as a symbol for "the Law and the Prophets", alias "God the Father's means of revelation". He uses both Moses (the first of the Law and the Prophets) and the Baptist (the last of the Law and the Prophets), who are both connected to the word "water", as personifications of the Law and the Prophets. They are the voice of "the Law and the Prophets". But my point here is that the word "water" is used by John as a symbol for "the Law and Prophets"= the dispensation of the Father's revelation. I show how this interpretation can be successfully applied to John 1, 2, 3, and 4. In the first 4 chapters of the gospel of John, John uses the word "water" to represent "the Law and the Prophets", and compares and contrasts this symbolic meaning with the Holy Spirit. Jn 1- "I came baptizing with water..." (3x) "but the one who comes after me willl baptize with the Holy Spirit". Jn 2- Turns "water" (the period of the Law and the Prophets) into "wine" (=Holy Spirit). Jn 3- "You must be born of water and the Spirit". Jn 4- the water from Jacob's well (=Law and Prophets/Father's revelation) vs the living water=Holy Spirit.
Now here is what will hopefully interest you: If we apply this same interpretation of the word "water" to I John 5:6-8, it agrees with Tertullian and Cyprian in their allegorical interpretation of the word "water".
I encourage you all to take a serious look at my paper. Someone with more skill than I needs to promote this interpretation.
Sorry, I forgot to leave the site where to find the paper that I referred to in my previous post. https://estradablog.wordpress.com/the-cana-miracle-2/
My name is Matthew Estrada
Matthew M. Rose
"Absolutely, unless you are seeking a non-Greek (i.e. Latin) text."
The goal is simply to have in our hands the Johannine text, written in Greek. This heavenly witnesses has an abundance of evidence from the Ante-Nicene era, and these tend to be dual language.
The obsession on extant Greek manuscripts as the one evidence of focus is simply a modern error. We want to know the Greek and Latin mss. in the Ante-Nicene era.
"Steven, most of your comments and conclusions are very subjective and open to interpretation. Regretfully, I have to disagree with your assessment of the evidence, and the subsequent conclusions you have made."
Textual criticism as a science, art or fantasy is virtually built upon the non-authenticity of the heavenly witnesses. Thus there is a paradigmic box. Acceptance of the truth of the heavenly witnesses authenticity is virtually the end of textual criticism, as practiced the last 200 years.
Matthew M. Rose
"With that said: is there some methodology or set of principles that you follow or apply to the external/internal evidences when adjudicating between variant readings?"
Generally, the same logic and common sense and faith that was held by the giants of the Reformation Bible.
And you are welcome to consider this a true form of reasoned eclecticism, one that looks at ALL the evidences.
In this case we have to look carefully (e.g. Erasmus touching on the grammar with 'torquebit grammaticos' and concealing from view the Cyprian evidence and mightily struggling with the Vulgate Prologue, lashing out at Jerome. And not yet having the 484 AD Council of Carthage available.) Today we have massive evidences that were not available in the 1500s, with the latest being Euseibus ad Marcellum.
Clearly the heavenly witnesses, and its sister verse Acts 8:37, present an extraordinary situation for a major variant where the Greek manuscript line is of far less significance that the other evidences, such as the:
a) the Latin lines
b) the early church writers
c) authorial style, harmony, grammatical 'internal' and parallelism considerations
Hope that helps. You are welcome to continue to express your despair :) on my home PureBible forum on Facebook, or any other sensible forum. We can share iron sharpeneth.
Steven Avery
Dutchess County
Again, my name is Matthew Estrada. The Johannine Comma is an interpretation, taken from John's gospel, of the symbolic meaning of water as used in John's gospel. So either the author of John, or someone close to that author who knew his symbolic meaning of "water", wrote that verse. As to whether it was an insertion, or original, that is for you to decide. But to get at the real meaning, which will help you decide whether it was a later insertion or part of the original text, you will need to understand the author of John's gospel symbolic meaning of the word "water". To do this, please study my poorly written paper on the Cana Miracle. Do a google search on Matthew Estrada allegorical interpretation. I know that allegory will turn most of you off, but the fact of the matter is that the Cana miracle is an allegory. And the meaning of the word "water" is found in that story. Study it, please, carefully.
Hi James,
James Snapp
“Can 1 John 5:7 be said to have been definitively introduced from the Latin, as though it were never found in a Greek manuscript?”
Please read the above careful. This is a classic loaded question, combined with an anachronistic approach.
The question gives the impression of discussing early Johannine transmissional history (c. 60-600 AD). Yet this is done through the window of extant mss. from a totally different era (1200-1530 AD). Whew!
Those later mss. were to an extent a reflection of the restoration of the text to the Greek line after the Lateran Council (1215 AD.) This looks to be especially true for the most important extant ms. the dual-language 629, Ottobonianus. The Lateran Council, key to understanding the era, was totally missed and/or omitted by Elijah Hixson.
The phrase:
"never found in a Greek manuscript"
Is actually discussing our very limited extant Greek mss. only,
Thus it is an attempt to retrofit the analysis of our very limited extant late Greek mss. By applying it to the period from c. 60 AD to c. 600 AD, a period where there are very few extant Greek mss. with 1 John 5.
Actually, there is an abundance of evidence that Greek mss. in that early period included the heavenly witnesses.
And above are a couple of questions to James Snapp on one of the evidences, the Vulgate Prologue, a first-person writing from Jerome.
==========
To Matthew Estrada, I simply do not consider your theory involving water as an allegory in the miracle at Cana as relevant. However, I would suggest moving Cana and Nazareth away from their Galilee valley site to the far more Gospel-reasonable area near Har Nitai (and possibly Arbel.)
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY, USA
Steven, if my theory is correct (and it is:), I believe it is very relevant. If the author of the Johannine epistles is the same who wrote the gospel of John (and I think he is), then his symbolic use of the word "water" as used in the gospel could very well apply to his use of it in I John 5:6-8 (which it does:). Now, if John used the word "water" to personify "the Law and the Prophets" (= the Father's means of revelation), which he did, and if we apply that same meaning to I John 5:6,8, then we have a trinitarian statement which agrees with the Comma ("the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit"). I am no scholar, but it would seem to have some kind of relevance given that this interpretation agrees with the early christian authors Tertullian and Cyprian in their interpretation of the word "water".
James,
I am impressed by the body of work that you've done on this subject. I just completed an independent study regarding the JC and I have come to very much the same conclusion. Mind you, I did not go through all 496 Greek manuscripts to ensure they did not hold the JC, but I went through the very earliest and then through those that have the added margin text. Very well done. I enjoy solid scholarship on Biblical topics...
James, can you please confirm that in your list of Greek manuscripts against the CJ, all of them do contain 1 Jn 5:6-8, from which the CJ is absent?
————
02, 048, 0296, 018, 020, 025, 049, 0142, 1424, 1862, 1895, 2464, 044, 056, 82, 93, 175, 181, 221, 307, 326, 398, 450, 454, 456, 457, 602, 605, 619, 627, 832, 920, 1066, 1175, 1720, 1739, 1829, 1836, 1837, 1841, 1845, 1851, 1871, 1874, 1875, 1880, 1891, 2125, 2147, 35, 36, 2, 42, 43, 81, 104, 131, 133, 142, 177, 250, 302, 325, 312, 314, 424, 436, 451, 458, 459, 462, 464, 465, 466, 491, 506, 517, 547, 606, 607, 617, 623, 624, 635, 638, 639, 641, 699, 796, 901, 910, 919, 945, 1162, 1243, 1244, 1270, 1311, 1384, 1521, 1668, 1724, 1730, 1735, 1738, 1828, 1835, 1838, 1846, 1847, 1849, 1854, 1870, 1888, 2138, 2191, 2344, 2475, 2587, 2723, 2746, 3, 38, 1, 57, 88, 94, 97, 103, 105, 110, 180, 203, 226, 256, 319, 321, 323, 330, 337, 365, 431, 440, 442, 452, 618, 620, 622, 625, 632, 637, 656, 720, 876, 917, 922, 927, 1058, 1115, 1127, 1241, 1245, 1315, 1319, 1359, 1360, 1448, 1490, 1505, 1573, 1611, 1646, 1673, 1718, 1737, 1740, 1743, 1752, 1754, 1850, 1853, 1863, 1867, 1868, 1872, 1885, 1889, 1893, 1894, 1897, 2127, 2143, 2186, 2194, 2289, 2298, 2401, 2412, 2541, 2625, 2712, 2718, 2736, 2805
Demian - that was a good question. To point out that I John 5:7 is missing from a ton of Uncials, Miniscules and Papyri Manuscripts is rather disillusioning, when most of those don't have I John at all. I am curious for your question though. Because bottom line is that I John 5:7 is not in any Greek NT prior to the 10th Century. Now, before I'm castigated, do please note that the earliest three texts that I have had access to thus far with I John 5:7 in them have been in the margins, written by a different hand at a later date with a different ink... It's not until the 16th century that we have the CJ within the text itself (outside of a diaglot - 629 that is both Latin and what could appear as a translation into Greek).
Bottom line from all this, I've not found evidence to point to that verse being in the Greek, without influence by the Latin. And many of the Latin manuscripts have adds, that may or may not be true to the original autographs. I'm continuing my search for compelling evidence though.
Brother Charles, it’s not my intention to castigate any brother in Christ who is dealing with textual variants in the texts of the scriptures. I’m not a specialist in manuscripts, but I read what the early Christians wrote and I know for a fact that textual criticism is a historical reality. You find the fathers dealing with textual variants and you also find variation in their texts. They normally quote from something close to the Byzantine text, but you also find some Alexandrian readings in their writings. James Snapp was the only person that I have found so far that is reflecting properly what I have found in the fathers. I just wanted to make sure that those witnesses that he cites against the CJ have been properly verified. Blessings!
Demian,
I don't think you were castigating anyone. By in large, what you asked was a solid question. Here's my question... Did you find one of those manuscripts or manuscript fragments to show the CJ? If it wasn't for the fact that he listed out, what I believe was 204 different manuscripts, with a note that there are more, then I might have gone through them all myself. He made the assertion... You have a fair question to ask if he confirmed that. But I really would like to know - have you found one that does have it???
Anyway, I hold no animosity. I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of many of these things...
Charles, I'm not trying to argue for or against the comma here. I'm simply trying to ascertain if the argument put forward by James Snapp is a valid one. If those 204 manuscripts contain 1 Jn 5:6-8 and lack the comma, then that's a powerful argument against it on the basis of the MSS evidence.
Demian, it appears that you are used to people arguing back with you. I'm studying this topic. I'm asking questions. I have done a fair amount of study on this topic, but I'm always looking for more compelling info. I ran across this writing and put some of the info on the page I'm working on...
This is my study page for this topic - http://www.jesussaidiamgod.com/is-i-john-57-biblical-text/
Largely I'm agreeing with you. I very much dislike conversations through text, because you cannot hear my tone, see my body language or see that I'm just not trying to correct anyone here. :) Learning...
Charles, we know that the comma is ancient and variations of it appear a number of times in the early church, starting in the third century (I also don’t grant that Tertullian quotes it, but I am convinced that Cyprian appeals to it big time!). I grant that it is not in many (or some?) Greek manuscripts, but I’m trying to ascertain if 204 is a fair number. Let’s say just for argument sake that only 20 out of those 204 MSS’s contain 1 Jn 5:6-8. Wouldn’t that change our perception and the weight we give to the evidence based on what can be found in the extant copies containing 1 Jn 5:6-8? I’m not impressed by the argument that Erasmus included it only in the third edition of the Textus Receptus in 1522, because it was already in the Greek text of the Complutensian Polyglot compiled by Cardinal Ximenes in 1514. Also, the argument that it was not in the commentary by Clement of Alexandria should not carry too much weight, because he only commented briefly on a few verses here and there in the first epistle of John.
Is it possible that Eusebius removed it from those 50 copies that he prepared for the church in Constantinople because of his leaning towards Arianism? Don’t underestimate his influence on the Greek copies. Thomas Aquinas said that he removed the pericope adulterae that was in the original copy by Ammonius and some years later it disappears from Chrysostom’s text in Constantinople! Food for thought…
Demain, there are only 10 manuscripts that have it. Did you not read the artical? 5 of them are only a marginal note. They were all made under the influence of the Latin Vulgate, which is the only reason they found their way into these to few late manuscripts. There are over 500 Greek manuscripts without it. It was never part of the Greek originals or manuscript tradition.
OK. I’m willing to follow the evidence. I’m even open to reject the comma, if I find that the evidence contained in the Greek manuscripts outweighs the historical evidence for it. But let me ask you. Out of those 500 manuscripts, how many contain 1 Jn 5:6-8? And can you provide us with a list of those manuscripts?
Did you read the artical? To quote from the artical "
Now let’s look on the other side of the equation. Here, from researcher Timothy Berg, is a list of the Greek manuscripts that contain First John but do not have the Comma Johanneum in the text".
Over 500 are listed in the original artical.
https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2020/01/first-john-57-and-greek-manuscripts.html?m=1#comment-form
Now let’s look on the other side of the equation. Here, from researcher Timothy Berg, is a list of the Greek manuscripts that contain First John but do not have the Comma Johanneum in the text:
Manuscripts Produced Before the 700s: 01, 03, 02, 048, 0296
Manuscripts Produced in the 700s-800s: 018, 020, 025, 049, 0142, 1424, 1862, 1895, 2464
Manuscripts Assigned to the 900s: 044, 056, 82, 93, 175, 181, 221, 307, 326, 398, 450, 454, 456, 457, 602, 605, 619, 627, 832, 920, 1066, 1175, 1720, 1739, 1829, 1836, 1837, 1841, 1845, 1851, 1871, 1874, 1875, 1880, 1891, 2125, 2147,
Manuscripts Assigned to the 1000s: 35, 36, 2, 42, 43, 81, 104, 131, 133, 142, 177, 250, 302, 325, 312, 314, 424, 436, 451, 458, 459, 462, 464, 465, 466, 491, 506, 517, 547, 606, 607, 617, 623, 624, 635, 638, 639, 641, 699, 796, 901, 910, 919, 945, 1162, 1243, 1244, 1270, 1311, 1384, 1521, 1668, 1724, 1730, 1735, 1738, 1828, 1835, 1838, 1846, 1847, 1849, 1854, 1870, 1888, 2138, 2191, 2344, 2475, 2587, 2723, 2746
Manuscripts Assigned to the 1100s: 3, 38, 1, 57, 88, 94, 97, 103, 105, 110, 180, 203, 226, 256, 319, 321, 323, 330, 337, 365, 431, 440, 442, 452, 618, 620, 622, 625, 632, 637, 656, 720, 876, 917, 922, 927, 1058, 1115, 1127, 1241, 1245, 1315, 1319, 1359, 1360, 1448, 1490, 1505, 1573, 1611, 1646, 1673, 1718, 1737, 1740, 1743, 1752, 1754, 1850, 1853, 1863, 1867, 1868, 1872, 1885, 1889, 1893, 1894, 1897, 2127, 2143, 2186, 2194, 2289, 2298, 2401, 2412, 2541, 2625, 2712, 2718, 2736, 2805
Manuscripts Assigned to the 1200s: 4, 5, 6, 51, 204, 206, 172, 141, 218, 234, 263, 327, 328, 378, 383, 384, 390, 460, 468, 469, 479, 483, 496, 592, 601, 614, 643, 665, 757, 912, 914, 915, 941, 999, 1069, 1070, 1072, 1094, 1103, 1107, 1149, 1161, 1242, 1251, 1292, 1297, 1352, 1398, 1400, 1404, 1456, 1501, 1509, 1523, 1563, 1594, 1595, 1597, 1609, 1642, 1719, 1722, 1727, 1728, 1731, 1736, 1758, 1780, 1827, 1839, 1842, 1843, 1852, 1855, 1857, 1858, 1860, 1864, 1865, 1873, 2180, 2374, 2400, 2404, 2423, 2483, 2502, 2558, 2627, 2696
Manuscripts Assigned to the 1300s: 18, 62, 76, 189, 201, 209, 216, 223, 254, 308, 363, 367, 386, 393, 394, 404, 421, 425, 429, 453, 489, 498, 582, 603, 604, 608, 621, 628, 630, 633, 634, 680, 743, 794, 808, 824, 913, 921, 928, 935, 959, 986, 996, 1022, 1040, 1067, 1075, 1099, 1100, 1102, 1106, 1248, 1249, 1354, 1390, 1409, 1482, 1495, 1503, 1524, 1548, 1598, 1599, 1610, 1618, 1619, 1622, 1637, 1643, 1661, 1678, 1717, 1723, 1725, 1726, 1732, 1733, 1741, 1742, 1744, 1746, 1747, 1753, 1761, 1762, 1765, 1769, 1831, 1832, 1856, 1859, 1866, 1877, 1881, 1882, 1886, 1890, 1892, 1899, 1902, 2080, 2085, 2086, 2197, 2200, 2261, 2279, 2356, 2431, 2466, 2484, 2492, 2494, 2508, 2511, 2527, 2626, 2675, 2705, 2716, 2774, 2777
Manuscripts Assigned to the 1400s: 69, 102, 149, 205, 322, 368, 385, 400, 432, 444, 467, 615, 616, 631, 636, 664, 801, 1003, 1105, 1247, 1250, 1367, 1405, 1508, 1626, 1628, 1636, 1649, 1656, 1729, 1745, 1750, 1751, 1757, 1763, 1767, 1830, 1876, 1896, 2131, 2221, 2288, 2352, 2495, 2523, 2554, 2652, 2653, 2691, 2704
Manuscripts Assigned to the 1500s and Later: 90, 296, 522, 1702, 1704, 1749, 1768, 1840, 1844, 1861, 2130, 2218, 2255, 2378, 2501, 2516, 2544, 1101, 1721, 1748, 1869, 1903, 2243, 2674, 2776, 2473, 1104
I have read the article. Have you? It seems that you need to read it again more carefully, Conan. Have you noticed what he said before mentioning all those witnesses? “Please note: a huge majority of these manuscripts don’t have I John at all”. I was expecting that you had a better information, but it seems that you will not be able to tell me how many of those 500 MSS’s contain 1 Jn 5:6-8.
By the way, you made bold assertions about the fact that "it was never part of the Greek originals or manuscript tradition". Let's assume just for argument sake that those 5 MSS's (01, 03, 02, 048, 0296) that were cited in the article contain 1 Jn 5:6-8. Five manuscripts in a period of 700 years is good enough for you to establish a firm tradition of Greek manuscripts from the autographs all the way until the 7th century? Five manuscripts in 700 years! Think about that for a moment before making bold assertions like that, Conan. And because you claimed that it was never in the originals, can you tell me how many of those manuscripts are assigned to the second and third centuries so we can establish the link between the apostolic age and codex Vaticanus?
We don't have any Greek manuscripts from the 2nd or 3rd centuries that have 1 John. But we do from the 4th century onwards. You see the list that all of those manuscripts that do contain 1 John don't have the Comma. There never were any that did. That's what the Greek witnesses say. 4th century through 15th century. All of those good Byzantine witnesses testify that the Comma never existed in the Greek. Why don't 10th century Greek manuscripts have it? Because their ancestors did not have the Comma.
By the way those that are listed do have 1 John. Read it again please.
QUOTE
Now let’s look on the other side of the equation. Here, from researcher Timothy Berg, is a list of the Greek manuscripts that contain First John but do not have the Comma Johanneum in the text
ALL of the LISTED manuscripts CONTAIN 1 John, and THEY do NOT contain the Comma.
Demian,
It's not exactly understandable what your argument is here. I John is in many early manuscripts. The Pericope is not in them. I asked you before, which one have you found that has it there. To date, I have not found one in the Greek.
Please read this.. this addresses the issue more plainly...Something that I wrote and I have some of the notes from this site as well included. http://www.jesussaidiamgod.com/is-i-john-57-biblical-text/
I believe the Trinity is truth. This one piece of text is not supported by ancient manuscripts and it is not needed to evidence out the truth of the Trinity. I never really understand how or why people have such a tug for the Pericope. Many have because of their hard-core belief that the KJV is the only inspired and infallible word of God remaining. Anyway..
You did bring up some good points. I'm just curious. Would you be so kind as to present the evidence? Makes for some good dialogue at least.
Conan, we were talking about two different things. I was referring to Charles' article and you were referring to James Snapp article. Charles' article brings the same list of witnesses with the caveat “Please note: a huge majority of these manuscripts don’t have 1 John at all”. Anyway, we are now back to my original question. How many of those 500 MSS's of 1 John contain 1 Jn 5:6-8? Approximations are good enough for me. Is it 10, 20, 50, 100, 200? What is that?
You are missunderstanding. It clearly says there are over 500 manuscripts that do not have the Comma. It does not say how many of the 5,000 plus Greek manuscripts contain 1 John. It says of the over 500 Greek manuscripts that do contain 1 John these do not contain the Comma. All manuscripts do not contain 1 John. Over 500 do, and of those on the list, they do not have the Comma. The 500 on the list are verified to not contain the Comma.
Let me put it this way again. There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts, from whole New Testament's to only fractions of scripture. Over 500 of those contain 1 John, and they have been checked and do not contain the Comma. There are 10 manuscripts of 1 John that do contain the Comma, in the margin or the Text.
Charles is in denial. It is overwhelming evidence against the Comma. Pretending that the over 500 manuscripts (my count) of 1 John do not contain 1John is to mishandle the evidence. Again I refer you to the real research that has been done
"Now let’s look on the other side of the equation. Here, from researcher Timothy Berg, is a list of the Greek manuscripts that contain First John but do not have the Comma Johanneum in the text".
To pretend the research hasn't been done when it clearly has.
Conan, I found a way to verify that list of manuscripts. You will see an online catalogue of manuscripts with photos of each page in the following link: http://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/home.
If you look up 1 Jn 5:6 and 1 Jn 5:8, you will see that several manuscripts of that list that you cited as proof against the CJ contain neither 1 Jn 5:6, nor 1 Jn 5:8. They do not contain the comma, because they do not contain any text of 1 Jn 5:6-8. It’s misleading to say that manuscripts that do not contain those 3 verses at all are a witness against the comma. You are welcome to check my findings so far:
Manuscripts produced in the 700-800s: 020, 025, 1895 and 2464 do not contain any verse from 1 Jn 5:6 through 1 Jn 5:8.
Manuscripts assigned to the 900’s: 056, 175, 454, 602, 605, 619, 627, 1066, 1720, 1829, 1836, 1841, 1891 and 2147 do not contain any text of 1 Jn 5:6 through 1 Jn 5:8. 1880 contains only verse 8.
I have not verified the list from the 1000’s onwards, but I’m pretty sure that that number of 500 MSS’s against the comma will not stand when I finish my research.
Conan, you are a funny guy. You say I am in denial. The irony is, you are not listening. You didn't read what I posted and you are not listening to anything that I have written thus far. I have stated - verbatim - there is no evidence to confirm the Comma.
Please don't put me in with the KJV Only crowd. Please don't list me with the people who say that the Comma is in the earliest of texts. That's simply not true.........
Conan, please just read what I said, as opposed to whatever you think that I said. :) LOL http://www.jesussaidiamgod.com/is-i-john-57-biblical-text/
Please don't be just like Demian....
Hi friends,
Joining in the discussion, although I have a bit above.
The 500 Greek manuscripts give us a good picture that the Greek manuscript line normalized without the verse from c. AD 700 to AD 1200. At that point the Lateran Council began a return of the Greek text which included the Council having the verse in Greek and Latin (discussing the doctrines of Joachim Flores), Codex Ottobonianus, Manuel Calecas and Joseph Bryennius, before Erasmus and the 1500s activity.
Also we have a good picture of the Latin line from about AD 200 (Tertullian and Cyprian) continuing onward with the verse in an estimated 1,000 manuscripts. This includes Old Latin mss. which line was translated no later than the 2nd century. And heavenly witnesses usage by about 100 Latin authors from the 300s consistently through to the Reformation era.
Then we have cross-language evidences like Jerome's Prologue to the Canonical Epistles that points to ancient mss. with the verse.
We have the Council of Carthage of 484 with 400+ orthodox confirming their faith specifically citing the Johannine heavenly witnesses verse. This shows that the Old Latin line having the verse was widely accepted without any pushback.
Similarly the grammatical solecism without the verse in the short Greek text tells any true Bible believer that this verse is from John, along with powerful corroborating stylistic and internal evidences. A simple example is the "Witness of God" of verse 9 points right back to the heavenly witnesses of verse 7. Another is the wooden redundancy of verse 6 to verse 8 when the heavenly witnesses are removed. Another is the beautiful parallelism, in the minds of the short text afficianados there is not even a reference to heavenly or earthly! This is a beautiful Johannine parallelism, not that of Clunk the Margin Writer and Flunk the Interpolator.
We also have some Greek evidences such as the Disputation of Athanasius against an Arian at Nicea that show the verse. And the Synopsis of Scripture.
So to focus almost obsessively on simply Greek manuscripts, which are almost all quite late, is a trick of the modern textual critics who really do not understand the evidences. For this verse, the Greek manuscripts are simply one modest group of evidences.
It is exceedingly easy to explain the verse dropping out of the Greek line, but a wacky margin insertion that fixes the Greek text solecism in translation from Latin, and develops a beautiful harmonious parallelism is, for the Bible believer, a road too far.
As Demian said:
"Five manuscripts in a period of 700 years is good enough for you to establish a firm tradition of Greek manuscripts from the autographs all the way until the 7th century? Five manuscripts in 700 years!"
Blessings and grace in Jesus name!
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY USA
Sure, when we put side by side 5 Greek manuscripts until the 700’s against the comma versus all the use of the comma that you just mentioned in church history plus Jerome’s testimony that irresponsible scribes left that out, a different perspective shows up for those who are willing to examine the evidence properly.
If the comma is a commentary by Cyprian that crept into the Greek text, why then don’t we have a comma with “Son” instead of “Word”?
Something else, too, Steven. One of James Snapp’s golden rule in textual criticism is: which reading better accounts for its rival? Is it possible that his rule applies here? The TR seems to account for the NA28 here. Don’t we have a potential case for parablepsis in the comma? Notice that the scribe probably skipped over from verse 7 to verse 8, because both have the very same wording in verse 7 and 8, which is “τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες”. Isn’t it possible that the scribe accidentally skipped over the comma?
Demian. Looking at your first one on the list 020, I see this
"a5. Contains the Acts, Paul, and the Catholics. Acts lacks 1:1-8:10; the Catholics are complete; Paul lacks Hebrews 13:10-end. Scrivener says that is is "of a date not earlier than the middle of the ninth century," though most modern catalogs date it to the ninth century.
This says the "catholics are complete". What do you make of that? Thank you for your post by the way. This evening I will go through the list.
Good catch Conan! You are absolutely right! 020 and 627 were there. I got them wrong on my notes. I just went over that list again. I will go over the whole list this week and I will ask you to double check my revised list so we can be sure that the evidence is treated properly.
Updating:
Manuscripts produced in the 700-800s: 025, 1895 and 2464 do not contain any verse from 1 Jn 5:6 through 1 Jn 5:8.
Manuscripts assigned to the 900’s: 056, 175, 454, 602, 605, 619, 1066, 1720, 1829, 1836, 1841, 1891 and 2147 do not contain any text of 1 Jn 5:6 through 1 Jn 5:8. 1880 contains only verse 8.
Have a great week ahead ;-)
Demian
"plus Jerome’s testimony that irresponsible scribes left that out"
Really an incredible evidence, similar to that of Augustine and Ambrose on the Pericope Adulterae, yet even more dynamic as Jerome was working directly with ancient mss, Greek and Latin.
========================
Demian
If the comma is a commentary by Cyprian that crept into the Greek text, why then don’t we have a comma with “Son” instead of “Word”?
The whole theory that a commentary becomes a margin note becomes a vastly improved and beautiful, majestic textual insertion really is is a non-starter. With Cyprian it is impossible since, as Henry Thomas Armfield, pointed out, you have to theorize
an invisible allegory.
*** certain mystical interpretation which he has not given or alluded to, a verse which he has not quoted! ***
========================
Demian
"James Snapp’s golden rule ... which reading better accounts for its rival? ... parablepsis in the comma?"
In 2014 James actually did good work showing this possible first drop of the verse. You can follow the urls I placed here:
James Snapp helps on the homoeoteleuton cause of omission
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/james-snapp-helps-on-the-homoeoteleuton-cause-of-omission.2303/
Steven, another piece of evidence... All those 5 manuscripts that were cited against the comma in the first 700 years are Alexandrian. If one copyist missed the comma due to parablepsis, it's simply natural to see subsequent copies reproducing the same error in the same local.
Note the very first comment gentlemen:
"Are there any differences between the critical apparatus provided by Timothy Berg and the apparatus contained within Text und Textwert? I didn't have the patience to check every entry, but everyone I did is listed in Text und Textwert as well. I'm wondering if Mr. Berg has furnished the apparatus with more data."
Berg's reply:
"Matthew, unless I made some mistakes (which is certainly possible) then the list should be the same as the TuT entry, with the minor difference that I tried to organize them into categories approximating the century of their approximate date of composition."
"Text und Textwert" is the source, and the data should be correct. (Save if Mr. Berg has made a slip up here or there, as he mentioned above.)
Demain,
"το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν"
Is read by: 025 056 175 454 602 605 619 1066 1720 1829 1836 1841 1891 2147 1895
2464 reads: "το πνευμα και υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν"
(Acc. to Txt. und Textwert.)
Demain,
If you have any questions regarding the apparatus please ask, as I own the "Text und Textwert" volume in question.
(And I wouldn't want you to spend all week going through all of these.)
Demain. 025 also has most of 1 John , icluding the verses
Under discussion.
Location/Catalog Number
Saint Petersburg, Russian National Library Gr. 225. Called Codex Porphyrianus after its former possessor, Bishop Porphyry.
Contents
Palimpsest, originally containing the Acts, Catholic Epistles, Paul, and the Apocalypse complete. In addition to occasional letters obliterated by the upper writing (works of Euthalius), a number of leaves have been lost, including those containing Acts 1:1-2:13, Romans 2:16-3:4, 8:32-9:10, 11:23-12:1, 1 Cor. 7:15-17, 12:23-13:5, 14:23-39, 2 Cor. 2:13-16, Col. 3:16-4:8, 1 Thes. 3:5-4:17, 1 John 3:20-5:1, Jude 4-15, Rev. 16:12-17:1, 19:21-20:9, 22:6-end. Scrivener states that, in addition, James 2:12-21, 2 Pet. 1:20-2:5 are "barely legible." Presumably modern methods have made it more possible to read these sections, but they will be poorly cited in older editions. (Scrivener notes that it also contains "a few fragments of 4 Maccabees," but given that it is palimpsest, one may wonder if these are truly part of the same volume.)
Demain writes:
"The following do not contain any text from 1 Jn 5:6-8:
Manuscripts produced in the 700-800s: 025, 1895 and 2464.
Manuscripts assigned to the 900’s: 056, 175, 454, 602, 605, 619, 1066, 1720, 1829, 1836, 1841, 1891 and 2147."
I previously explained:
"το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν"
Is read by: 025 056 175 454 602 605 619 1066 1720 1829 1836 1841 1891 2147 1895
[And so does 020 mentioned by Conan.]
2464 reads: "το πνευμα και υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν"
(Acc. to Txt. und Textwert.)
Every MSS. mentioned here does contain the section—and omits the comma. You must be misreading the ntvmr format of reference.
Matthew, it seems that the library in Münster doesn't have all manuscripts? From all those manuscripts cited I found only 260 or so. I don't know what to do on my end to verify that data. I guess I will have to trust you as my verifier. Thank you for reaching out to Mr. Berg in order to check the source and the accuracy of the information and for sharing with us the name of the apparatus!
And thank you Conan! The fact that you double-checked 020 and 025 from different sources makes me feel confident that all those 500 MSS's contain 1 Jn 5:6-8 from which the comma is absent.
Good discussion!
Here is one of the earliest Greek evidences. Charles Forster p. 59-63 in his New Plea places this as direct writing form Athansius, "The theme is peculiarity Athanasian", there is some earlier weak scholarship that tries to place it around AD 600, and today's view of Annette von Stockhausen is early 400s.
=====================
Athanasius - Disputation Contra Arium 44; Migne Graeca, PG 28.499-500
[Athanasius responds]
Likewise isn’t it the remission of sins procured by that quickening and sanctifying ablution [baptism], without which no man shall see the kingdom of heaven, [a baptism] given to the faithful in the thrice-blessed name? And besides all these, John says: ”And the three are the one”.
(Richard Porson, Letters to Travis, 1790 p. 214 and 1828 p. 199)
=====================
And it is strongly corroborated by Potamius of Lisbon writing of the heavenly witnesses to Athanasius.
=====================
AD 350 - Potamius of Lisbon
● Letter to Athanasius the Bishop of Alexandria on the consubstantiality of the Son of God.
You must justly admit that, when your poisonous desire of impure slander was inflamed, the venerable fathers transfixed you with pious arrows in that holier council. Here also it is clearly shown that you held before you fetters of malicious distortion, since the Savoir says: "I have come down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of him who sent him." (John 6:38) What do you answer, serpent? Is it really possible that you seek to obfuscate the brightness of this [PAGE 138] pure profession, which they consider to be a very small problem? The occasion has a bearing on the matter. The Lord our Savior appeared to mankind as a human being, since he had clothed himself with a human body. Therefore, he said: "I have come down from heaven not to do my own will." (John 6:38) He denied the exercise of the humanity that was in him. Therefore, he cries out in order to proclaim in himself the predecessor whom he remembers as his Father and begetter. Since the Son is named second, therefore he who precedes is greater: but, because "these three are one", the substance of him who sends and of him who is sent, in the context of the unity of the Godhead, is one: "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30), and "He sees me, sees the Father." (John 14:9) and, as the Savoir himself said to the Apostles: "I have been so long with you and yet you do not know the Father." (John 14:9)
(Potamius of Lisbon. "Letter to Athanasius the Bishop of Alexandria on the consubstantiality of the Son of God" in the life and works of Potamius of Lisbon edited and translated by Marco Conti, 1998, p. 136)
=====================
Since the assigning of Vaticanus to the 300s is quite dubious,and not particularly relevant since it is such a corrupt Reader's Digest edition (and should we mention the umlaut/distigme?) and Sinaiticus is 1800s, the Disputation may well be our earliest extant clear Greek evidence. And it points directly to the heavenly witnesses verse being in the Bible of Athanasius.
=====================
Yes, good discussion gentlemen! My take away is this. Internal evidence strongly suggests that the comma was part of the original text and was accidentally lost by a copyist in Egypt. The error of those copies in Egypt may have been transferred to the Byzantine copies by means of those 50 official copies that Eusebius prepared for use in Constantinople. The Latin copies in the West were not influenced by this copyist error. Church history demonstrates that the comma is ancient, but because it has very little support in our 500 extant Greek copies containing 1 Jn 5:6-8, we should never use this text to settle a doctrinal disputation or be dogmatic about the inclusion or exclusion of the comma to the point of breaking the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. The comma is a plausible textual variant on both sides and should be preserved as a marginal note for both translators who decide to either keep it in the text or exclude it.
Just a last word. We owe nothing to Muslim apologists or the Bart Ehrman’s of this word. Don’t allow your position to be determined by what would make sense for them. The word of God was handed down to us with textual variants and one copy corrects another as the saying went among the reformers.
Demian writes: "Internal evidence strongly suggests that the comma was part of the original text and was accidentally lost by a copyist in Egypt."
"For we resolutely maintain, that external Evidence must after all be our best, our only safe guide..." -Burgon
The external evidence should help guide our conclusions on the internal, not the other way around. Even so, I have to say that you are more measured in your conclusions than anyone else I've come across who has suggested that the comma is authentic.
Matthew: read this post and you will see that I'm not the only one here who sees a very strong case based on internal evidence over external evidence.
https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2019/05/john-78-not-not-yet-or-nothing.html
Besides, the early church fathers confirm the existence of the comma so that you have a combination of internal evidence and external evidence in my argument. Cyprian certainly pre-dates codex Vaticanus by 70 years or so...
And by the way, thanks for your kindness! That's the way Christians are supposed to dialogue ;-)
Hi Folks,
Let's look at the context of the John William Burgon quote.
Matthew M. Rose
"For we resolutely maintain, that external Evidence must after all be our best, our only safe guide..." -Burgon
Revision Revised - 1883
https://books.google.com/books?id=GglFAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA19
And if you look at the context of the quote, Burgon is talking about rejecting the corruptions of Vaticanus and a motley crew of piddle supports.
"the dictates of a little group of authorities, of which nothing whatever is known with so much certainty as that often, when they concur exclusively, it is to mislead. We speak of codices B or n or D ; the IXth-century codex L, and such
cursives1 as 13 or 33; a few copies of the old Latin and one of the Egyptian versions: perhaps Origen" -
Burgon continues with some Hortian fantasies like the Antiochene Recension
With the heavenly witnesses, the massive Latin support and the incredible ECW support and the special historical aspects like Jerome's Prologue all take the heavenly witnesses outside the context of your Burgon quote.
Then we get to the incredible grammatical, stylistic and internal evidences. :)
Yours in Jesus name,
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY USA
Demian,
ουκ: א D K M Π 1071 1079 1241 1242 1546 l672 l673 l813 l950 l1223 it-a, aur, b, c, d, e, ff² vulg syr-c syr-s cop-boh arm eth geo slav Diatessaron Porphyry acc. to Jerome Ambrosiaster Epiphanius Chrysostom Augustine Cyril
The evidence for the comma is not nearly as full as that above ("ουκ" Jo.7:8), so I fail to see your point. Secondly, the same individual (i.e. Pastor Snapp) "who sees a very strong case based on internal evidence over external evidence" there, utterly refuses any notion that the comma is original here!
You write:
"Besides, the early church fathers confirm the existence of the comma so that you have a combination of internal evidence and external evidence in my argument. Cyprian certainly pre-dates codex Vaticanus by 70 years or so..."
The ECFs confirm the existence of many readings that are *not* original, and nearly every "important" textual variant in existence can be documented as being older than codex Vaticanus, so again, I think you're overstating your case.
Steven,
Yes you're correct about the context. Albeit, the statement by Burgon is a good representation of what he believed concerning the question of external vs internal evidence in general. (And his obvious dismissal of the comma legitimizes my use of such.)
"For we resolutely maintain, that external Evidence must after all be our best, our only safe guide..." -Burgon
This is certainly part and parcel of Burgon's methodology. My only desire was to point out that internal evidence is secondary in nature, that's all.
Matthew, I’m satisfied with the info that I shared here. It demonstrates that there is an early church Father witnessing the existence of the comma in his manuscript before all those witnesses that were cited in this article. Next time you see a picture of any of those manuscripts in this article, remember that it is missing something that was witnessed 70 years before by Cyprian. Also keep in mind that 70 years after the composition of the earliest manuscript in this list, no less a person than Jerome shows up to complain that irresponsible scribes left out what your brother in Christ saw as a very strong reading accounting for its rival. And then, lastly, I will allow our friends to judge who dealt fairly with all the evidence and built a case taking into consideration all the witnesses and who had to dismiss some of it in his argumentation.
By the way, I think you will be gracious to recognize that those 2 pairs of 70 years are approximations ;-)
I was serious hoping for a more serious and objective approach to the comma, other than a weak assessment of an early church father saying something remotely like the comma, but not quoting the verse, only a subjective piece, that could be the missing comma itself. The Latin - that's great and fine and dandy, but it's late. To date, we have zero evidence in the Greek manuscripts, up until after the 10th century and then it's written in the margins.
Sorry - it's a stretch. Provide the evidence "FOR" succinctly and we can review it, but it seems like a lot of writing, pre-suppositions and grasping for straws based on this grand notion of an inerrant Bible that still exists, yet we are left with the errant 1611 KJV.
I'll check back sometime later.
"Also keep in mind that 70 years after the composition of the earliest manuscript in this list, no less a person than Jerome shows up to complain that irresponsible scribes left out what your brother in Christ saw as a very strong reading accounting for its rival. And then, lastly, I will allow our friends to judge who dealt fairly with all the evidence and built a case taking into consideration all the witnesses and who had to dismiss some of it in his argumentation."
I think I'm going to puke.
Thank you for asking the question Charles.
1. Cyprian wrote several letters and treatises addressing the Novatian schism during the Decian persecution that broke out around the year 250AD. One of the issues that he got heavily involved with was the controversy on what to do with the lapsed, those who had capitulated under persecution, but repented and want to return to the fellowship of the church. He defended that those Christians who had repented should be received back into the fellowship of the church. On the other hand, Novatian disagreed and a schism took place between them. For Cyprian, it was a grievous error to destroy the unity of the church by means of a schism like that. In his first treatise, he argues for the unity of the church from several different angles. One of them was the essential unity of the divine persons. He then goes on to quote two passages that affirm the essential unity of the persons of the Trinity. The first passage is: "I and the Father are one" (Jn 10:30). There is no allegory here, right? He is simply quoting scripture to prove his point. But, then he found another place where it is written of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit that these three are one. Where do you think that he could possible have found this idea written in his bible? He found some place where it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit that these three are one (1 Jn 5:7). I am going to give you the quote so you can see for yourself what he is doing in context:
The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;” (Joh 10:30) and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.” (1Jn 5:7) And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? He who does not hold this unity does not hold God’s law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation (Treatises of Cyprian - Tr. 1, paragraph #6)
2. Now, I will give you Jerome's preface to the catholic epistles so you can see for yourself his complaint about the removal of the comma:
The order of the seven Epistles which are called canonical is not the same among the Greeks who follow the correct faith and the one found in the Latin codices, where Peter, being the first among the apostles, also has his two epistles first. But just as we have corrected the evangelists into their proper order, so with God’s help have we done with these. The first is one of James, then two of Peter, three of John and one of Jude.
Just as these are properly understood and so translated faithfully by interpreters into Latin without leaving ambiguity for the readers nor [allowing] the variety of genres to conflict, especially in that text where we read the unity of the trinity is placed in the first letter of John, where much error has occurred at the hands of unfaithful translators contrary to the truth of faith, who have kept just the three words water, blood and spirit in this edition omitting mention of Father, Word and Spirit in which especially the catholic faith is strengthened and the unity of substance of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is attested.
In the other epistles to what extent our edition varies from others I leave to the prudence of the reader. But you, virgin of Christ, Eustochium, when you ask me urgently about the truth of scripture you expose my old age to being gnawed at by the teeth of envious ones who accuse me of being a falsifier and corruptor of the scriptures. But in such work I neither fear the envy of my critics nor deny the truth of scripture to those who seek it.
PS: Just a last comment. Notice that Jerome sees in the terms "Father, Word and Holy Spirit" in the CJ a reference to the "Father, Son and Holy Spirit". The same thing that Cyprian saw in his treatise.
Matthew M. Rose said...
"... Jerome shows up to complain that irresponsible scribes left out what your brother in Christ saw as a very strong reading accounting for its rival."
I think I'm going to puke.
Hi Matthew, an unusual reaction, I hope you are in good health.
Are you familiar with the Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles. James Snapp and I have a number of spots where we discussed the text.
Thanks!
Demian, you have added important context to the Cyprian heavenly witnesses usage.
Including this extract (more above):
"The first passage is: "I and the Father are one" (Jn 10:30). There is no allegory here, right? He is simply quoting scripture to prove his point. But, then he found another place where it is written of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit that these three are one. Where do you think that he could possible have found this idea written in his bible? He found some place where it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit that these three are one (1 Jn 5:7)."
And I plan a page on my PureBibleForum that will quote you .. with a title like "The context of the Unity of the Church passage from Cyprian".
Thanks!
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY USA
When I read Cyprian, I could not get around the fact that he quoted 1 John 10:30 immediately before 1 John 5:7 in order to build his case. Two scriptures quoted side by side in context to prove the essential unity of the persons of the Trinity, which was part of his appeal to unity in the body of Christ. The essential unity between the divine persons of the Trinity in 1 John 5:7 is the very same argument defended by Jerome in his prologue of the catholic epistles and a little later by Fulgentius as he appeals to Cyprian's treatise saying that Cyprian was quoting those "scriptures" in his treatise. Interestingly enough, Fungentius was aware that Cyprian appealed to the essential unity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but had "Word" in his text of 1 Jn 5:7 for his public battles against the Arians.
I have more to say about 1 Jn 5:7 like why this scripture was not the go-to text by the defenders of the deity of Christ in Nicea and so on. Please, share the link so I can interact with your post and your audience.
Just do me a favor, brother. You have full authority to correct my typos. I have noticed that I have been writing too fast lately without proper attention to grammar.
Thanks!
Here we go.
Pure Bible Forum
the context of Cyprian's passage in the Unity of the Church using the heavenly witnesses
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/the-context-of-cyprians-passage-in-the-unity-of-the-church-using-the-heavenly-witnesses.2312/
Facebook - Textus Receptus Academy
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467217787457422/posts/949730372539492/?comment_id=1007677413411454
Thank you Demian and Steven Avery for taking an excellent stand for the comma! It's incredibly encouraging, I plan on putting forth an argument in favor of the passage in the future, which is still in a rough stage in my brain at the moment. I would also like to thank everyone else who has participated in the healthy discussion here, this is an incredible example of loving discourse on such a controversial subject!
God bless you all!
Agreed, Juda, and thank you.
Looking forward to any writings you have, my Profile here has some contact points, and the richest ongoing discussions are on Facebook, in the Textus Receptus Academy group and the one I host, PureBible.
Blessings and grace in Jesus name,
Steven
Retraction:
I no longer lean towards the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum in the text of the scriptures.
While I recognize that "Jerome's" preface to the catholic epistles was written no later than the 6th century, I prefer now to call that author pseudo-Jerome. After having read many commentaries by Jerome from cover to cover, it struck me that Jerome never appealed to 1 John 5:7 as a proof-text of the Trinity. If he was the author of that preface, given the importance that that author confers on the heavenly witnesses for the "strengthening of the catholic faith", we would find Jerome alluding to this verse in places where he discusses the doctrine of the Trinity, but he never does. It seems to me now that pseudo-Jerome is complaining in that preface that the real Jerome left out the CJ of his Latin translation, the vulgate.
As to Cyprian, recently I read a work by Augustine called "Against Maximus the Arian bishop" (see chapter 22 # 3*) that convinced me not only that Augustine didn't have the Comma Johanneum in his manuscript, but I also understood the thought of Cyprian in his first treatise on the unity of the church. The fathers allegorized the words water, blood and spirit in verse 6 so as to mean the Trinity. Augustine reveals this in this work where he says things like: "by Spirit we understand God the Father" (then he cites John 4:24), blood refers to Son (then he quotes John 1:14) and water refers to the Spirit according to John 7:39. I then learned that that was a common allegory in the early church. It seems to me that that common allegory became a marginal gloss and than the Fathers in North Africa around the time of Fulgentius ended up including the gloss into their Latin texts.
* I'm not sure if this work has been translated into English.
Demian says that the early Church Fathers allegorized the text, and then he provides us with Augustine's allegorical interpretation. In a paper that I wrote some 30 plus years ago as a young seminarian, I made the claim that John, the author of both the gospel and 1 John, is the one who allegorized the meaning of "water", and that word was not given the meaning of "the Spirit" as Augustine understands it. Rather, "water", both in John's gospel as well as in 1 John 5:6-8 refers to "the Father".
In John 1, John has the Baptist say 3x that he came "baptizing with water", and the third time he says this he follows it up with "but the one who comes after me will baptize with the Holy Spirit". "Water" is contrasted with "the Holy Spirit".
In Jn 2, John has Jesus turn "water" into "wine". While in my paper I work with John 1-4, I concentrate on the Cana Miracle story. In this story, John uses the word "to draw" (Ἀντλήσατε; "Now draw some out", Jn 2:8) to lead his readers back to the Ex 2 story where Moses was "drawn" from the "waters". In my paper I provide as evidence many verbal and thematic connections between Jn 2:1-11 and the Ex 2 story in order to demonstrate that John was using Ex 2 as one of his source materials in the creation of this story. The main reason why John did this was to connect "Moses" with the word "water". Doing so, John has now connected the first and greatest of the Law and the Prophets (Moses) and the last and greatest of the Law and the Prophets (John the Baptist) to the word "water", thereby via the word "water" symbolizing "the Law and the Prophets", or, in other words, the "Father's" dispensation of revelation. When Jesus turns the "water" into "wine" (which is symbolic of the Holy Spirit), he does so via his death and resurrection. So when Jesus tells his "mother" "My hour has not yet come" (Jn 2:4), and yet does the miracle, this is only because within that story "time" has passed before our very eyes in the "filling of the jars" with "water". His hour had not yet come in Jn 2:4 but in Jn 2:7 time passes before our eyes, and in Jn 2:8 his hour had arrived. The story is about Jesus' death and resurrection and Jesus' accomplishment of turning the dispensation of the Father into the dispensation of the Holy Spirit. You will need to read my paper to see how I support my argument, but the point that I wish to make now is that "water" in Jn 2 is being contrasted with "wine", and "water", as in Jn 1, refers to the Father and "wine" refers to the Holy Spirit. So even as in Jn 1, John the author was contrasting the dispensation of the Father with that of the Spirit, so too is he doing so in Jn 2.
In Jn 3, John has Jesus tell Nicodemus you must be born of "water and the Spirit", again contrasting/comparing the Father's dispensation with that of the Spirit's. How is one born again? Through believing in the Son (Jn 3:14-15).
In Jn 4, John compares/contrasts the "water" from Jacob's (OT patriarch) well, which again represents the Father's dispensation with the "living water" that Jesus provides, later identified in Jn 7:38-39 as representing the Holy Spirit.
Demian, the main point that I am trying to make here is to show how it was John- not the early Church Fathers- who allegorized the meaning of "water", and if my claim is correct, then this allegorization of the word "water" would also make sense of 1 John 5:6-8. It is a Trinitarian formula.
Sincerely,
Matthew Estrada
You can find my paper on the Cana Miracle on Academia:
https://www.academia.edu/44567388/An_Allegorical_Interpretation_Of_The_Cana_Miracle
Brother Matthew, your theory makes that allegory viable in your mind, but it does not prove that John in fact wrote 1 John 5:7 as we find it in the Textus Receptus. I encourage you to read what Gregory Nazianzen and Augustine wrote about 1 John 5:8. I could not find any trace whatsoever in their discussions that indicate that their manuscripts of 1 John 5:6-8 contained the heavenly witnesses as we find it in the TR. If John had written this verse, you would expect that they would have mentioned things like: "like John says in the previous verse", "notice that John talks about the Father, the Word and the Spirit that these are one", "notice how John equates the Word to blood" and things of this nature. The verses in the TR are so logically connected, that silence in making any connection between those 2 verses by a man of the caliper of Augustine, to me becomes an eloquent silence to the point of screaming from the rooftops. But of what John allegedly wrote in verse 7 those two fathers knew nothing. I would also point out that Augustine is in the West and Gregory in the East, major figures in the early church that gives an indication that those 2 major branches of the early church did not have have any knowledge of the TR reading in 1 John 5:7, Augustine in 427/428 when he wrote that treatise against Maximus and Gregory representing the Byzantine tradition in the fourth century. Also, the figure that Augustine admired the most in the early church was Cyprian who wrote that treatise on the unity of the church. Augustine would have known if Cyprian had in his manuscript or was alluding to the heavenly witnesses as we find it in 1 John 5:7. Therefore, I can no longer defend the TR reading in good conscience here, but God bless you if you have a different conviction about this.
Thank you, Demian, for your response. I plead ignorance on the history of 1 Jn 5:7, but I will try to learn more about this. That my interpretation of the word "water" = the Law and the Prophets (alias "Father's dispensation of revelation"), contra traditional interpretation (water=baptism), is correct, I have no doubt. I am convinced that 1 Jn 5:6-8 is a Trinitarian statement, and that "water" is symbolic of the Father.
Hi all,
Good discussion. Your comments give me a better insight into some of the thinking surrounding this verse.
A quick review here: The internal evidence for inclusion of the pericope in First John 5:7-8 is generally seen to be favorable. This can be seen via argument put forward by such Greek scholars as Eugenius Bulgarius, as previously mentioned. There is no case where a neuter noun substantive is indicated by masculine or feminine adjectives or pronouns. This results in a solecism. And even if one tries to bring examples such as Matthew 23:23 or First John 2:16, these are only examples of masculine and feminine nouns being construed with neuter nouns/adjectives/pronouns. These are not the same as a neuter noun substantive indicated by masculine or feminine adjectives or pronouns. Big difference. I have more internal evidence, like the antecedent for the witness of the Father in vv. 9-10 (notice: αὕτη)... however, I leave this here, lest I would divert at all from the force of the first argument. Furthermore, my subjective assessment as a believer myself is also that this pericope very much belongs here for these and other reasons that have often been cited. However, internal evidence like this shouldn't be the only thing considered in the defense of a part of Sacred Scripture, so we continue.
Going to versional evidence and patristics, these play a supporting role in showing both the general historicity, and (to a lesser degree) correct consistent placement of the verse in question, but that is as much as we ought rightly to ask of them. But before moving on, I would mention the fact that Origen cited the pericope in Selecta in Psalmos, in a scholium for Psalm 123 (122), which says the following: "And the Lord our God is three, for the three are one," including the Greek text, "οἱ γὰρ τρεῖς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν." (Chapter 122 Paragraph 2, 122.2) The inclusion of the bolded words indicates the force of the words to follow is drawn from its authority. And it is unlikely that this reference is being drawn from other patristics, (such as that of Cyprian which was earlier already mentioned in this discussion), which patristics also seem to cite part of this same pericope; and, in one of Cyprian's quotes he even explicitly connects it to John 10:30 as a second scripture reference - as Cyprian says, of both John 10:30 and it respectively, that they are "written," via the flourish: "and again it is written," placed between the two quotes.
Before moving on from this, I would also mention: The method of argument against the versional evidence and patristics leaves much unanswered. If, for instance, the whole pericope originated as an adaptation of something first said by Tertullian, for example– then why is it that both Origen and Cyprian are seen to make the exact same "adaptation" of Tertullian's loosely-resembled statement in Adversus Praxean– and furthermore, on the thought that the reason for the pericope's existence (in Greek) is due to a late interpolation of a patristical quote which became an accidentally-inserted marginal note, how does this account for early versional evidence? It doesn't seem to account for it. Much less convoluted is the possibility that Cyprian, Origen and the versions all acquired it from a Greek copy. Otherwise one must maintain all of them colluded together to bring it into existence, or one must dismiss one or more of these witnesses to the pericope as being invalid. Comparatively, other patristic evidence and much later versions do not carry much weight here due to their lateness. (cont'd below)
The omission of the pericope in most if not all Greek MSS from at least the 8th century until the Lateran Council (1215) can be explained, if one does ask about this, in the way that John Mill mentions in his annotationes found in the apparatus of his 1707 Textus Receptus (Novum Testamentum pp. 739-749). That is, that the omission originated as either a parablepsis - homoeoteleuton or less likely a deliberate omission. And that regardless of the origination method, the textual line of omitting the pericope from this point was deliberately carried forward by theologically motivated scriptoria in the East afterward. Under this explanation, they would have opportunistically seized upon finding a copy with this variant to become their exemplar. Offhand, this also is reminiscent of some TC today. This is an explanation for the imbalance regarding this verse in the Greek MSS. However, it seems to my understanding of such a scenario, that at least some Greek MS with the inclusion could survive long enough to be copied and collated by the editors of the Textus Receptus such as Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and others. It seems to be yet another vast imposition on credulity to assert that, these editors, who differed on the fine points at various parts of the received text (e.g. First John 2:23), yet all conspired virtually unanimously to include this pericope. The best explanation once again is simply that, as with our earlier sources, each of the TR editors had access to Greek MS that simply aren't extant anymore, and so they each were able to put it in their editions with a perfectly clear conscience. This is the most straightforward possible explanation from a detached, objective POV. No historical reasons seem to even exist for thinking otherwise. It's also something that Mill remarked about in his annotations back in the early 18th century as well, so I am not entirely alone in this explanation, as the best way to explain what we see. It's not surprising that, what I freely grant was likely a minority reading in the 16th century, might be missing substantial direct Greek MS evidence today - if that is our conclusion. But this doesn't eliminate the witness of God's word then, because, under this explanation, it continues forward in print, specifically, in all of those TR editions that copied from the non-extant Greek MSS, and I would openly maintain with good reason are all still unchanged from the original. —So, to summarize this, for these very reasons we never need to posit that the original reading, no matter where we might decide to look in Scripture - was lost. Even if people dismiss GA 629 and Montfortianus (or perhaps even some other yet undiscovered MS with the pericope), that doesn't affect anything argued here, as you can see so then feel free to dismiss them. Yet still we need not to posit that the CJ was lost, nor therefore that it had to be reinserted; neither does one have to do this for any original reading. And only the original is what should concern us, in case it needs to be explicitly stated.
To move lastly, however, to the most convincing evidence of all, the final argument from fideism does away with all of these concerns. That is if these concerns still remain. And I would like to present that now. Which is that our Lord and Savior is faithful, and we are not to lean on our own understanding. Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. (Prov. 3:5-6). This is how I know that, even if the whole world agrees on one thing, it still has to stand the test of God's word. I have saved this test for last. In my book, this test is the definitive test. And, the position here is as follows: See Matthew xxiv.35. - Amen
Hi Andrew, just for your consideration and please take this as a respectful argument against “the most convincing evidence of all” in your reasoning. If we are going to use Mt 24:35 for textual criticism, then the only possible conclusion is that the CJ does not belong in the text otherwise His word would have passed away in the Bible of Augustine, Gregory of Nazianzus, Ambrose and many others who loved and defended the doctrine of the Trinity in the early church.
Hi Demian, I'm glad you brought that up. My mind is so settled on showing how the pericope here was always in the text, I forgot to also bring up the extra fact, which is that it says in Proverbs 30:5-6 the following:
"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."
Now the first verse here shows us that every word of God is pure and is a shield to those that put their trust in Him. In other words, we have historically not had the problem of interpolations. Now I know you and possibly others as well are thinking, what about some of the interpolations in the Latin lines or other lines of text, for instance where the word "Titius" (or "Titus" according to the DRB) was added in Acts 18:7, or even more concerning where the entire phrase "although I am not under the law" was added to 1 Cor. 9:20 in these texts (along with other modifications to vv. 21 and 22). However, these are not the original Greek manuscripts. That is where my focus is, and, in those cases, the word of God has always been pure and a shield to those who put their trust in Him, including with the pericope in 1 John 5:7-8.
And you bring up another interesting point that I wanted to mention but didn't yet as it is not central to my point. The reason why many patristical writers did not use this pericope in defense of the Holy Trinity can be seen in the fact that the Sabellians of the 3rd century were already mis-using (or abusing) the passage in John 10:30, which says essentially the same thing as 1 John 5:7. What use would it be to introduce this Scripture into a debate that already existed about the correct understanding of John 10:30? In terms of Christology, at least. It would seem to me that more context would be needed from other passages beside just this.
Indeed, that added context is why we have the statement that All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for those things that are mentioned in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God, as it says in both the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 8:3) and the New Testament (Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4). That doesn't mean there aren't corrupters out there, as mentioned by Paul in 2 Corinthians 2:17, but it does mean that they won't succeed in removing God's word from this world, nor will they succeed in adding to it, I should like to add now. And the CJ is not an example of that. In my earlier post I simply wanted to point out the fact that it can clearly be explained how the CJ was never lost, and I hope that broader point has been duly received and considered. Even more obvious, I think, it never had to be added. I do thank you however for giving me a chance to elaborate on some of these things and wish you and our readers the best.
-Andrew
Andrew, Gregory of Nazianzus was a Greek speaking father. He was not working off any Latin translation of the Bible. He didn’t have the CJ in his Greek text. From his perspective, he could say that a Latin “added to His words” and should be rebuked by tampering with the word of God found in his good Byzantine manuscript. Also, the reason why Ambrose never used the CJ against the Arians was simply because he didn’t have it in his manuscript, not because he was concerned that the passage might be misused by Sabellians. When you have some time brother, read his book on the Holy Spirit (book 3.67) and you will see for yourself that he quotes the full passage of 1 Jn 5:6-8 without the CJ. Again, the previous question stands, how is it that the word of Jesus passed away in those manuscripts?
Hi again Demian,
You bring up a thought that I'm sure has been asked before. However, it is equally much or more so a demonstration from the patristics that this is an ancient saying from the fact that both Origen (as quoted above from his commentary on Psalms) and Cyprian in multiple places (On the Unity of the Church ch. 6 and Letter to Iubaianus 12.2) quotes this passage, and from the presentation I gave in my first post above, this shows at least from the patristic writing perspective something much more convincing than a mere argument from silence. I will let you all judge for yourselves on the relative strength of these quotations. To me it seems obvious that this is significantly (perhaps overwhelmingly) stronger than an argument from silence.
That seems to be, correct me if I am wrong, what you have brought forward as your concern with this passage.
Well, I hope you can see, Demian, we can use argument from silence to make the case for all kinds of ridiculous positions. So then, trusting that I do not need to make specific examples, I wouldn't place much weight in it.
But regarding whether your question stands: I believe I addressed it in my second post. Specifically, there are two possibilities which I raised. Either 1) the writers you have cited had the passage and simply chose not to include it - as I mentioned before with regards to the fact that John 10:30 essentially deals with the same truth, and this first part I think deals with a lot of the silence quite succinctly (this could even be a deliberate choosing not to include it); or else 2) the writers didn't have it in their text for the simple reason that they had a corrupt manuscript. As I mentioned before, there are corrupters out there. But I tempered that statement by mentioning also the fact that they will not succeed in corrupting the entirety of any part of the textual tradition. On this I invite the readers to believe in God and His ability to keep His word, as it says in Isaiah 55:11, "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it."
So we should be sure that the Lord's word has not returned to Him void. No part of it was lost or attrited completely from the record. And as it says in Proverbs 30 (quoted before), every word of God is pure, and He is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him. So then we are sure that there are no interpolations that have crept into God's word, or else it would not say that every word of God is pure, nor that His word is a shield unto us that put our trust in Him. Also in John 17:17 it says, "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
However, the fact that some people had a corrupt manuscript (if the case may be) does not imply that all people, or that the church, was stuck with a corrupt manuscript. I think this fact logically needs little explanation as anyone could understand it. Just because one person in antiquity has a manuscript with an error in it, that does not mean that every manuscript in antiquity had that error in it. This seems quite obvious to me and I hope the point isn't lost in this discussion. I regard it as a tautology, in fact. It's not surprising, in fact, that some corrupt manuscripts did exist, I suppose I would rather be surprised if the contrary were true. (Cont'd below)
I am often reminded of one very prominent example of a corrupt manuscript I came across in my studies, specifically in the Synod of Arras, (ACTA SYNODI ATREBATENSIS, in Actes de la province ecclesiastique de Reims, tom. II, pag. 6) where the ruling Bishop pulls out a copy of John chapter 3, and quoting from it says the following (read carefully):
"On these things the Bishop asked: 'How has it come to pass,' he asked, 'that what the evangelical and apostolic institutions hold, is contrary to what you preach?' He narrated, 'in the text of the gospel, unto the prince and Ruler Nicodemus, who regarded those signs and wonders as signifying that Jesus was of God, the Lord continued to answer, "that no confession alone could merit a role in the kingdom of heaven, unless a man be born again of water and the spirit." So either you are able to receive regeneration from this mystery, or else the gospel words must conflict with what Jesus said.'"
Do you see what happened there? The Bishop of Arras quoted from a corrupt version of John 3:5, and used it to argue for a doctrine that connects John 3:5 with baptism, in forming an argument for baptismal regeneration. But if he had been using the original Greek text, we would not hear about being "born again of water and the Spirit." Because the word "again" is not present in the original John 3:5 (albeit it is in John 3:3 and 3:7). My conclusion from this, and also other conversations I have had, is that this textual corruption in John 3 has been used to argue for the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. However... just because one person's copy contains this addition (it could also be an omission or other alteration as the case may be), that does not mean that every copy of John's Gospel contains this variant. Hopefully this point is sufficiently clear here. I know sometimes I am not the best at expressing myself clearly but I hope that has not been an issue here.
I think that the argument from silence can be explained primarily by 1) but also by possibility 2) where necessary. And this explanation does not even require that we have access to patristic writing positively affirming that this pericope belongs in Scripture (which we do) nor versional evidence of its correct placement (which does exist). However, the most important item, as mentioned before is that the church has consistently used the pericope in all ages, especially during the time when we know that the received text was accepted by everyone, and this combined with the faithfulness of God with His word shows us that it is indeed the case that, as the Psalmist said, "Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." (Ps. 119:160) So this is also the case here with First John 5:7-8, and from the points brought forth by myself and others.
- Andrew
PS– I would also concur with what John Mill wrote, who is a far abler scholar, in the annotations for his 1707 New Testament edition (translated roughly to English):
"I say therefore, that this Pericope, however it afterwards disappeared, certainly existed in the Autograph of John himself, and in some other Copies written to it. [...] To me, I confess, (better, if a longer day will give something better and more certain, when I am ready to learn) the argument for winning the authority of this verse seems to be of such strength that I do not consider it in any way to be moved from its place." (Novum Testamentum pp. 746,749)
All,
Okay, I'll admit I went a little overboard there in my defense. Specifically with regards to the part where I invite the readers to believe in God as part of my defense. But I do maintain at least that we have good, solid reasons to hold this passage as part of God's truth, as with some other part of the Bible anyone could name; and I hope that at least was made clear in my opening post. With all of those good reasons in mind, I haven't seen anything that really convinces me of the contrary case. Just that thought is what I would like to get across. I think those who try to make derogatory remarks toward believers of this passage (not here) are going too far in their condescension, especially in light of what the actual evidence is, and that's what I do not like to see. I hope you will forgive me if I went too far at any point.
Just a couple of comments, brother:
1. Origin doesn’t quote the CJ in your citation of Psalm 123. "And the Lord our God is three, for the three are one," is not a citation of the CJ but a Trinitarian declaration. Cyprian also didn’t quote the CJ as we find it in the text receptus. He says on his treatise on the unity of the church that the Father, the “Son” and the Holy Spirit are one. He is certainly alluding to 1 Jn 5:6-8, but the CJ as we find in the TR has “Word”, not “Son”. I just reviewed Cyprian’s epistle 12 and didn’t find any reference to the CJ. Maybe you gave me the wrong reference?
2. I brought up Ambrose and said that he quoted 1 Jn 5:6-8. This is not an argument from silence. Here’s a father quoting the full text without the CJ and it proves that he didn’t have the passage. If, on the other hand, you are going to argue for corruption in his text, then I’d ask why the text got equally corrupted in multiple locations in the West and in the East. If he was the only father who didn’t have it, then your point could be easily established by comparing what is available to him with other orthodox fathers.
3.Baptismal regeneration in connection with Jn 3:5 is the universal teaching of the early church. All of the early church fathers taught a form of baptismal regeneration. All the witnesses that you brought up in favor of the CJ believed it. Origin calls it the “saving baptism”, Tertullian denied that a man can be saved by faith alone without baptism and Cyprian believe that a baby cannot be saved without baptism. So, were all your witnesses working off a corrupt manuscript that led them universally to affirm baptismal regeneration based on a corrupt reading of Jn 3:5? I wasn’t sure if you meant “apostolic institutions” or “apostolic constitutions”. If the latter, then I can confirm that it also taught in book 6 baptismal regeneration connecting Jn 3:5 and Mk 16:16. And I didn’t find the word “again” there.
4. To say that the church consistently used the CJ in all ages is not correct. Augustine, Gregory of Nazianzus, Ambrose and Leo the great didn’t have it. Leo actually quotes 1 Jn 5:5-8 in his famous tome 28 that was examined in the 4th ecumenical council and again the CJ is not there. Here we have churches both in the east and the west and tome 28 under the universal scrutiny of the church but no peep about the CJ or a push back against the wrong reading of the verse in Leo’s tome. The question remains, has the word of Jesus passed away in all those places, both in the East and West?
Post a Comment