tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post7469747681691895849..comments2024-03-20T12:35:12.828-04:00Comments on The Text of the Gospels: First John 5:7 and Greek ManuscriptsJames Snapp Jrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comBlogger153125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-72413082632571107222023-08-02T11:44:00.555-04:002023-08-02T11:44:00.555-04:00God bless you brother Andrew. Just keep in mind th...God bless you brother Andrew. Just keep in mind that you are talking to believers who equally love the word of God and are able to defend it from the perspective of what has been kept pure in all ages and for the universal church, not just the Latin arm of it. <br />Demianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03098425683385627645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-83076302681239559272023-08-02T11:25:18.111-04:002023-08-02T11:25:18.111-04:00Hi Demian,
If you judge yourself to be in that gr...Hi Demian,<br /><br />If you judge yourself to be in that group then it does apply, but if not then not. I get this based on Acts 13:46 (i.e. the idea of judging oneself unworthy of everlasting life). It's not for me to judge.<br /><br />What I'm interested in pointing out is that I have reasons for what I believe. What I mean is like, if someone were to challenge my faith, saying that they take none of the Bible to be true, based on whatever reasons they try to give: then I would resort to the same reasoning that I am here. People can try to challenge my belief in God's word, but I for one will just reaffirm my belief in Scriptures and, Lord willing, point out the fallacies being used against it, whatever those may be. The reason why I say I believe in this passage is the same reason why I say I believe in the Bible as a whole. I think everyone really has to have that reason if they want to say they are a believer.<br /><br />They have to be willing to deal with people who try to combat against faith with naturalistic reasoning.<br /><br />And if that's true of the Bible in general then it's also true of belief in any particular part of the Bible as well.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03466078139557295311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-51557085181489019102023-07-26T13:50:55.515-04:002023-07-26T13:50:55.515-04:006. Oh… about the solecism on the grammar of 1 John...6. Oh… about the solecism on the grammar of 1 John 5:8, the authority of Gregory of Nazianzus is good enough for me. One masculine subject and three complements in the neuter or one subject in the neuter and three complements in the masculine makes no difference, which invalidates the point that it’s OK to start in the neuter in 1 Jn 2:16 and have components in other genders, but not OK to start with a masculine and have other complements in the neuter. His authority settles the point.Demianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03098425683385627645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-1111477078376524072023-07-26T09:02:58.732-04:002023-07-26T09:02:58.732-04:00Hey Andrew,
Just a few comments:
1. We have exte...Hey Andrew,<br /><br />Just a few comments:<br /><br />1. We have extensively dealt with Cyprian at this point and I don’t see anything new in your quote that needs to be addressed. Tertullian is quoting the second part of verse 8. “Et tres unum sunt” is exactly how codex Fuldensis and codex Amiatinus reads at the end of verse 8. Because some fathers interpreted the Spirit, the water and the blood as a reference to the persons of the Trinity, they saw a Trinitarian reference at the end of verse 8. So, in order for you to prove that he is quoting the heavenly witness of verse 7, you would have to show a quote with the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit in connection with “and these three are one”. Otherwise, that part of the verse cannot prove your point. At best, it can be used only in a cumulative case.<br /><br />2. In psalm 123:2, Origen quotes these words: “οι γαρ τρεις το εν εισίν”. This is very close to what pseudo-Athanasius quoted and in the words of bishop Middleton that you accept as a Greek authority “nothing is more evident, than that this is a citation from the eighth verse”.<br /><br />3. Many Greek manuscripts have been lost but we have around 500 of 1 John 5 telling us the story of at least 1,000 years of total absence of the CJ in the Greek church. Plus, its absence in the manuscripts of the earliest quotes of the verse even in the Latin fathers Ambrose and Augustine. It’s absent from heavy-weight Latin fathers like Leo the great writing in the context of an ecumenical council and the scholarly Bede in the 7/8th. It’s interesting to observe that textual criticism in the texts of the Vulgate itself (Oxford and Stuttgart editions) have concluded that the verse doesn’t belong in the Latin vulgate of Jerome. Tricks and sleighs? I call it responsible use of the evidence and preservation of a good conscience in the truth that God preserved for us.<br /><br />4. I accept the Bible as the word of God and my worldview is fully consistent with it. I will assume that your uncharitable words like non-Christian, worldly apologetics and a naturalistic approach distrusting the inspiration of scripture were not directed towards me because nothing can be further from what I am. <br /><br />5. My fideism is that I’m using the preserved word of God, the same as used by the Greeks for 1,500 years. The same Bible that Ambrose, Augustine, Gregory of Nazianzus, Bede, Theoplylact and others used and I’m member of the same church of God as they were.<br /><br />Demianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03098425683385627645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-34225205581579473812023-07-26T07:21:57.368-04:002023-07-26T07:21:57.368-04:00In contradiction to this, it is sufficient to hold...In contradiction to this, it is sufficient to hold that at any given time, the overall state of existing evidence from past generations has been sufficient to ground Scripture historically. For the TR compilers, it stood entirely in MSS. Today, it stands mostly in MSS but also at least partially in them (however, never do I think this, the word of truth, is in one witness alone); so in any arbitrary time one might choose, this really leaves no room for doubt. Of course, supporting and circumstantial evidence exists in many cases: in particular, this strengthens our passage (and the skeptic must resort to many tricks and sleights). But this circumstance is due to the continuing changes in availability of some MSS. In general my difference, in approach, to higher criticism and that of skepticism, is one of philosophy. I advocate for the biblicist line, accepting the Bible as the word of God, while I accept the reality that others take a different metaphysical approach and act accordingly. I do however solemnly object that said opposing worldview is unrealistic. I also ask, why someone taking a nonchristian approach - or a metaphysically naturalist approach, not believing in the inspiration of Scripture - even has an interest in the Christian Scripture in the first place. There are so many biblical reasons one could point to why doing apologetics entirely on the world's terms is losing. John 15:19-20, James 4:4, Luke 16:13-15 all this Scripture makes one consider these things. As I said in my first post here, the final argument from fideism does away with all of these concerns here. If these concerns indeed do remain, rather than solely special pleading by the skeptic - it's the same whether they seek to remove or insert (i.e. introduce John 19:24 into Matthew 27:49). And I would like to present that final argument now. This 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).Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03466078139557295311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-55908273304685477402023-07-26T07:21:39.579-04:002023-07-26T07:21:39.579-04:00Demian,
I know there is a tendency for earlier co...Demian,<br /><br />I know there is a tendency for earlier comments to get buried, but just to be clear on a couple of things. Firstly, I don't think internal grammatical evidence is the most important or only means by which to validate First John 5:7-8. Obviously, that would open the door to lots of other emendations of solecisms. I don't think any reader would deny the existence of solecisms generally. But it is considered favorable for the inclusion on objective grounds if it does resolve such a striking solecism.<br /><br />In this case, a neuter noun substantive indicated by masculine or feminine adjectives or pronouns, present only in the omission and nowhere else in Scripture. This is an objective fact, it's not just my opinion or belief. Are there any other examples of this? Examples that some have brought up - like Matthew 23:23 or First John 2:16 - these are examples of masculine and feminine nouns being construed with neuter nouns/adjectives/pronouns, and they are not the same thing as this (the omitted First John 5:7-8) at all. All I need to do here is point out that others have already raised this same exact issue in the past – so people do not need to get into arguing about or trying to stretch or construe peoples' words. There's just no need or opening for that to take place.<br /><br />Remaining within the known objective evidence, we also see evidence for existence that is quite ancient among the witnesses we have today. Only one instance in all of Scripture of "καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν", generally leads to favorable ascription of quotes for this Scripture. Something that can't be said for every passage. And wouldn't you know it, Cyprian provides an explicit reference to it once in "On the Unity of the Church." Paragraph 6. He also invokes that phrase a second time in Iubaianus 12.2 a few years later, as does Origen while providing those same words in Greek. You also have another occurrence of "qui tres unum sunt" in the Latin in Adversus Praxean, ch. 25 by Tertullian, and this was referenced, along with Cyprian, as the first in a long list of evidence by John Mill in the 1707 Magnum Opus. I don't see from my view how any person can explain this away as happenstance while remaining balanced.<br /><br />And the versions of course play a special role, in helping to preclude skeptics today from calling this a "floating tradition," which is another angle they have taken. Of course the manuscript body in Greek needs to take the central role here, and it is without a doubt that none of the editors of the TR editions except for Colinaeus felt the slightest need to deviate from the words here proudly displayed. Thus I see in this a case similar to some other ones as in the end of Acts 10:6 (in all TR) or Revelation 22:21 ("you all" instead of "all the saints,") (all TR except Plantin 1584). Namely, that they had the manuscripts then that reflected this text.<br /><br />From simple induction, it's an accepted fact, both that printed editions can reflect non-extant readings - This is already well-known in the case of the Complutensian Polyglot - and also generally that it can be taken for granted in the case of copyists overall, as long as one works with and refers to apographa. The copyists of the early church obviously had access to manuscripts we don't have today. If one objects to this use of multiple witnesses in the form of the oldest apographs of a given time as being not old enough, then by reduction to absurdity, that same one must also demand autographs as the only acceptable evidence to them. This argument holds if one accepts, or grants, such demands as being radically skeptical.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03466078139557295311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-32293961308597330752023-07-25T07:02:46.056-04:002023-07-25T07:02:46.056-04:00Hi Andrew,
Real quick here. The witness of God in...Hi Andrew,<br /><br />Real quick here. The witness of God in verse 9 can be easily taken as the foundation to what comes next. It suits well the context that will develop this idea of the witness of God being the eternal life in His Son until verse 13. Notice that verse 11 explains that the “αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ μαρτυρία” refers to the fact “that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son”. Demianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03098425683385627645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-5041667590840597502023-07-25T03:13:14.614-04:002023-07-25T03:13:14.614-04:00Eric, you also wrote:
"Thousands of manuscrip...Eric, you also wrote:<br />"Thousands of manuscripts don't contain the Comma by people who speak Greek fluently. I have to imagine if the Greek demanded verse 7 in order to be grammatically correct, Scrivener and the Byzatine people would have recognized the grammatical insufficiency of the missing verse 7. As would have Erasmus."<br /><br />Two things here. Obviously, this is an argument from silence. I could just as easily frame the opposite argument on the same basis. Hardly anyone recognized that there was <i>not</i> a grammatical insufficiency as well. See? Obviously, I don't do arguments from silence. But if I did then that's what I could very easily say. I can just conclude, from most writers' lack of mentioning it (if should I want to make such an argument from silence) that they agree with me by default. You would have to prove that they don't. And every single person that didn't write about the subject agrees with me! There's nothing you or anyone can do about it or argue against it, if I choose to take that line. (This was so easy; maybe I should do this more!)<br /><br />But even more importantly, if any of these writers, such as Scrivener, had, then they would not thereby <b>negate</b> or affect the reality that others have spoken about the insufficiency on grammatical grounds of the omitted version of 1 John 5:7-8. I'm clearly not the first one to point it out.<br /><br />"I just do not believe the grammatical argument works especially if you are not fluent in Greek and they all are. They clearly have no issue with verse 7 being absent grammatically."<br /><br />Again, where did all of these writers actually say, explicitly, there was no problem with it? This seems to be the argument from silence here. Do they agree with your position by default? Please forgive me if I'm mistaken, Eric.<br /><br />Over what we've mentioned up to this point, there is also the matter of the antecedent to "αὕτη" (the witness connected to both "θεοῦ" and "αὐτοῦ" [of "υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ"]) in 1 John 5:9, which I alluded to earlier. Omit the CJ, and the antecedent to this witness in v. 9 (referred to by this word "αὕτη") is suddenly missing. There is no other preceding mention of the Father in the passage except in 1 John 5:7. To the best of my knowledge, this is another internal deficiency with the omission. (I am also willing to accept that my consideration of this missing antecedent may be wrong, but haven't encountered a refutation of this point either.)Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03466078139557295311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-6560981669168205972023-07-25T03:12:33.030-04:002023-07-25T03:12:33.030-04:00Hi Eric,
If I may, I would like to respond to part...Hi Eric,<br />If I may, I would like to respond to part of your comments.<br /><br />"I keep seeing the argument that the grammar demands it. I don't speak Greek so I can't weigh in on the grammar rules but this much I can say. Scrivener who was well verses in Greek didn't believed it belonged and he is very well versed in the Greek:"<br /><br />Scrivener was also on the Revised Version committee, his TR (despite some who use it) removed the "Amen" from Ephesians 6:24, and his edition of the KJV placed Psalm 9 and 10 into a single Psalm, as the LXX does. But he declined to perform the other changes contained in the LXX, resulting in a Bible that has 149 Psalms -- We all know that the Psalms in fact number 150, not a single one more or less.<br /><br />Going beyond this, there are also many other unexplained unusual readings that Scrivener seemed to deliberately insert into both his TR and his KJV editions for no apparent reason whatsoever. For instance, his removing of "αὐτῶν" from 1 Corinthians 14:10 (only reflected in the Colinaeus TR edition of 1535), and inserting "καὶ" in Revelation 21:13 (only reflected in the Plantin TR edition 1584).<br /><br />Why did he choose to follow these specific editions, for example, only when they presented unusual readings in the Greek text?<br /><br />And what about, in addition, his removal of the "Amen" in Ephesians 6:24, which is not found in any major TR edition?<br /><br />I checked all of Erasmus, all of the Stephanus, all of Beza, the 1624 and 1633 Elzevir editions, and many others. 24 different TR editions as well as the Complutensian. All include "Amen" at Ephesians 6:24, but Scrivener omits.<br /><br />And in his edition of the KJV (Cambridge Paragraph Bible of 1873), Scrivener did the exact same thing as this. I will show this in a moment. Another thing he did was to alter punctuation on his own, seemingly in order to change the sense of certain passages. This seems to constitute a subtle meddling with the meaning of Scripture for personal purposes, which doesn't seem to be followed by any earlier or later KJV editions. For example, Scrivener inserted a comma in Psalm 105:6 after the word "Jacob." He also removed two commas from Colossians 2:2 (both after "God" and after "Father"), among similar examples.<br /><br />What about Scrivener, for example, changing the word "for," into "For," in John 4:9, changing the implied speaker (check it for yourself!). Or Scrivener removing the capitalization of "Son" in John 8:35 (based on a typographical error in a few KJV editions). Or, what about Scrivener including an extra English word in 2 Thess. 2:15 - a change that seems to be an unusual typographical misprint found only in the 1613 printing of the King James Bible (to my knowledge), but yet reproduced by Scrivener in his new 1873 edition. Why did he do these things? I have dozens of other examples that I could raise of hunting and pecking for odd typographical mistakes, apparently borrowed from different printed editions, which Scrivener combined together in his edition here. He also seems to have excluded the "Amen" (from Ephesians 6:24 in his TR) based on one. These typographical mistakes are reproduced by Scrivener in his 1873 edition of the King James Bible (the same one which, quite shockingly and inexplicably, has only 149 Psalms).<br /><br />(Note: Obviously I don't recommend using his TR or his Bible edition.)<br /><br />But I ask this one question: Beyond any of that, can anyone explain why F.H.A. Scrivener chose to take part in the "Revised Version" committee along with Hort and Westcott? That had to have been a deliberate choice, am I right?<br /><br />Eric, you also wrote:<br />"Thousands of manuscripts don't contain the Comma by people who speak Greek fluently. I have to imagine if the Greek demanded verse 7 in order to be grammatically correct, Scrivener and the Byzatine people would have recognized the grammatical insufficiency of the missing verse 7. As would have Erasmus."<br /><br />Two things here. (1/2)Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03466078139557295311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-5934880526915805462023-07-24T01:43:33.301-04:002023-07-24T01:43:33.301-04:00Look at this. I translated the entire verse litera...Look at this. I translated the entire verse literally from Greek to English and then ran it through the google translator going from English back into Greek. Look at the result:<br /><br />For three are that bear witness: the Spirit, and the water and the blood. And the three are into the one.<br /><br />Διότι τρεις είναι αυτοί που μαρτυρούν: το Πνεύμα, και το νερό και το αίμα. Και οι τρεις είναι στο ένα.<br /><br />“For three are that bear witness” is masculine<br />“The Spirit, the water and the blood” are all neuter<br />“And the three are into the one” is masculine<br /><br />Exactly the same genders as written by John without the comma johanneum.Demianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03098425683385627645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-68624308215819811262023-07-24T00:03:29.025-04:002023-07-24T00:03:29.025-04:00* masculine plural* masculine pluralDemianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03098425683385627645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-67292055566610802822023-07-23T21:32:24.585-04:002023-07-23T21:32:24.585-04:00This is interesting… I just typed in the google tr...This is interesting… I just typed in the google translator this:<br /><br />The three are bearing witness the Spirit the water and the blood.<br /><br />And look at how it translated into Greek:<br /><br />οι τρεις μαρτυρούν το Πνεύμα το νερό και το αίμα<br /><br />One masculine participle and three complements in the neuter.<br /><br />;-)Demianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03098425683385627645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-2107351382064542282023-07-23T18:08:01.456-04:002023-07-23T18:08:01.456-04:00Scrivener was not attempting to determine what the...Scrivener was not attempting to determine what the original said. That was not his job as part of the committee with Westcott and Hort. His job was to create a Greek text that was uniform with the KJV. He was very clear and adamant that 1 John 5:7 did NOT belong and had no issues with the grammar without it.<br /><br />"There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.<br /><br />We are here treading over the ashes of many a fiery debate, but the flame which once raged so fiercely is well-nigh extinct. It may be doubted whether a single person now living, who is capable of forming an intelligent judgment on critical subjects, believes or professes to believe in the genuineness of that interpolated gloss, familiarly known as the “Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses”…. That it has no right to hold a place in the body of Scripture we regard as certain." - Scrivener<br /><br />I highly recommend you read his work. He was not at all a TR Advocate.<br /><br />Also, it doesn't make sense for the Byzantine people to continually copy 1 John 5 and leave out verse 7 if there was a grammar problem. This was their native language. They had access to 1 John 5 7 in the Latin. They knew it existed and we have no evidence they they ever included it in their native manuscripts.Eric Couturehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06442309462900151722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-58772765461735457502023-07-23T18:06:49.905-04:002023-07-23T18:06:49.905-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Eric Couturehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06442309462900151722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-61738295732113358032023-07-22T13:35:24.160-04:002023-07-22T13:35:24.160-04:00I know that your quote of Dr. Dabney was not addre...I know that your quote of Dr. Dabney was not addressed to me, but allow me commenting on it. Dr. Dabney retracted his notion that the internal evidence demands the comma in the text when he realized about 10 years later that the external evidence was overwhelming against his position by the “unanimous consent of competent critics”. Here are his words:<br /><br />Next, there was a suppression of this all-important fact, that since the development of the vast critical apparatus of our century, the textus receptus, whether by good fortune or by the critical sagacity of Erasmus or by the superintendence of a good providence, has been found to stand the ordeal amazingly well, has been accredited instead of discredited by the critical texts. So slight were the modifications in its readings clearly determined by the vast collations made by the critics of the immediately preceding generation (collations embracing every one of the bosted uncials, except the Sinai MS.), that of all the important various readings only one (1 John 5:7) has been given up to excision by a unanimous consent of competent critics (The southern Presbyterian review, volume 32, #3, July - 1881, article # 8 - The Revised Version of the New Testament, Dr. R. L. Dabney)Demianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03098425683385627645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-53786501138863612152023-07-22T09:42:37.412-04:002023-07-22T09:42:37.412-04:00Hi Sean,
Just a few things:
1. There is no evide...Hi Sean,<br /><br />Just a few things:<br /><br />1. There is no evidence that any church Father quoted the comma before Priscillian. Cyprian and pseudo-Athanasius quoting verse 8 and pseudo-Jerome writing in the 5/6th century leaves you only with Priscillian in the 4th century. Below you will find his quote and then see if this is the preserved word of God:<br /><br />As John says "and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh, the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus."<br /><br />Notice that Priscillian has “flesh” instead of “Spirit” and the accretion “in Christ Jesus” at the end of verse 8. This is not the preserved word of God, word for word, is it?<br /><br />2. The argument that Augustine may have left out “on earth” in his quote of first John only works if you need to impose your personal conclusion on the evidence. And then you propose that you and I don’t know if Augustine was quoting from first John. I’m not with you here. He says specifically that he is quoting from a letter of John with the exact words of 1 John 5:8 without “on earth”. The context of his passage also militates against any notion that he had verse 7 in his Bible with the heavenly witnesses. Augustine is definitely a witness against the comma.<br /><br />3. How can church fathers like Augustine declare that the comma is an interpolation if they never saw it in their bibles? Also, the Greek fathers cannot comment on a variant about which they didn’t know anything for a Millenium. Witnesses cannot testify against something they never saw.<br /><br />4. The majority of scholars today reject that the pericope adulterae was originally written in the gospel of John, but there are some voices in favor of it. Maurice Robinson and Wilbur Pickering for example defend that it was part of the original text of John. They have different models of transmission of the text, differing from the group of scholars you are criticizing. Have you heard what they have to say about the heavenly witnesses? <br /><br />5. Gregory of Nazianzus is dealing with a heretical group that came up with arbitrary rules of grammar in order to deny the deity of the Holy Spirit. He is not dealing with honest believers in the context of the church. This is the key for understanding what he is saying in context. Here’s bishop Middleton on this quote:<br /><br />“He is arguing against a sophism which turned on the difference between connumeration and subnumeration: it was contended, that persons or things equal in dignity and homöusian are connumerated; e. g. we say three men three Gods: whereas things unequal and not homöusian are enumerated, and that, which as being the lowest in dignity is placed last, was said to be subnumerated: thus from the formula, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the objectors inferred the inferiority of the last named Person. With this explanation the passage from Gregory will be intelligible”<br /><br />By the way, bishop Middleton wrote a book on Greek articles discussing rules, problems and exceptions but in his entire comment on 1 John 5:7-8 there is not a syllable about the issue you are bringing up. If the masculine participle demands the existence of the comma, why didn’t he use it as part of his case?Demianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03098425683385627645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-68604604740277595772023-07-22T03:26:32.569-04:002023-07-22T03:26:32.569-04:00Also, 19th Century Theologian Robert Lewis Dabney ...Also, 19th Century Theologian Robert Lewis Dabney also recognized the clear violation of Greek Grammar if the comma is omitted. <br /><br />“The internal evidence against this excision, then, is in the following strong points:<br /><br />First, if it be made, the masculine article, numeral, and particle…are made to agree directly with three neuters—an insuperable and very bald grammatical difficulty. But if the disputed words are allowed to stand, they agree directly with two masculines and one neuter noun… where, according to a well known rule of syntax, the masculines among the group control the gender over a neuter connected with them…<br /><br />Second, if the excision is made, the eighth verse coming next to the sixth, gives us a very bald and awkward, and apparently meaningless, repetition of the Spirit’s witness twice in immediate succession.<br /><br />Third, if the excision is made, then the proposition at the end of the eighth verse [and these three agree in one], contains an unintelligible reference… ‘And these three agree to that (aforesaid) One’… What is that aforesaid unity to which these three agree? If the seventh verse is exscinded, there is none… Let the seventh verse stand, and all is clear: the three earthly witnesses testify to that aforementioned unity which the Father, Word, and Spirit constitute.18<br /><br />There is a coherency in the whole which presents a very, strong internal evidence for the genuineness of the received text” <br /><br />R. L Dabney, Discussions of Robert Lewis Dabney, biographical sketch by B. B. Warfield, 2 vols. (Carlisle, PA, USA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1967). <br /><br />There are more, but finally I will end with Gregory of Naziansus who lived in the 4th Century also acknowledges that the Greek Grammarians recognized that the passage makes no sense grammatically as it stands with the comma omitted. <br /><br />The internal evidence alone, proves without a shadow of a doubt that the Johannine Comma is the true utterance of the Holy Ghost and that 1 John 5:7 must remain a clear part of the Holy Scriptures (Matthew 4:4).Sean Bonittohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14565674140244508125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-13701635012302028272023-07-22T03:25:57.836-04:002023-07-22T03:25:57.836-04:00Hello Eric. As I appreciate Dr. Scrivener’s work o...Hello Eric. As I appreciate Dr. Scrivener’s work on creating the Greek Text that underlines the King James Bible, if he truly believed that 1 John 5:7, or the Johannine comma was not a part of the Word of God, then why did he retain it in his Greek Text, or why did he even choose to complete a Greek Text that retains the comma? By him doing so, means that he would be adding to the Word of God, words he believed that God did not say. This is very troubling indeed. Nevertheless, his understanding of the evidence internally, should have convinced him of the genuiness of the article, for some reason he was blinded of this fact. This was unfortunate. <br /><br />Nevertheless, Erasmus in his later editions of the TR, along with Stephens, Beza, in their received texts, along with the scholars who translated the King James Bible, etc, have all retained the comma and acknowledged it to be genuine. <br /><br />Also, Greek scholars who also lived during the 19 Century as Dr. Scrivener, clearly have recognized that the Greek Grammar of 1 John 5:6-8 demands the inclusion of the comma. Bishop Thomas Middleton a renown Greek Grammarian who lived in the 19th century and wrote a whole book dedicated to the Greek Article, “The Doctrine of the Greek Article Applied to the Criticism and Illustration of the New Testament” testifies that he was aware of those who recognize the grammatical difficulty of the passage without the comma, and also how the Grammar of 1 John 5:8 specifically in reference to the definite article, makes no sense, or has no force or meaning without the Johannine Comma of 1 John 5:7. <br /><br />“It has, however, been insisted that the omission of the rejected passage, rather embarrasses the context. Bengel regards the two verses as being connected..and yet it must be allowed that among the various interpretations there are some which will at least endure the absence of the seventh verse. But the difficulty to which the present undertaking has directed my attention is of another kind. It respects the article of EIS TO EN in the final clause of the eighth verse. If the seventh versehad not been spurious, nothing could have been plainer than that TO EN of verse 8 referred to EN of verse 7. As the case now stands, I do not perceive the force or meaning of the article.” - The Doctrine of the Greek Article. <br />Sean Bonittohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14565674140244508125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-90886114631758476652023-07-22T02:01:14.721-04:002023-07-22T02:01:14.721-04:00As for your comment that Augustine did not quote f...As for your comment that Augustine did not quote from 1 John 5:7 how do you know this? You do not, and neither do I definitively, however, where else from Holy Scripture do we see that the three referring to the Trinity are one, other than 1 John 5:7? The word on earth is a quote from 1 John 5:8, and it is possible that he decided not to quote on earth, or that it was a qoute from a manuscript variant that did not have on earth. Thus, it is complete conjecture to assume that we know what Augustine intended, or what occurred. <br /><br />Your argument that because that the comma is an interpolation with all due respect, is a complete fallacy, and total conjecture. Is there any reference in church history that declares the comma to be an interpolation? And even if there was, which to my knowledge there is not, how would it prove it to be such? No Greek Father has declared the comma to be an addition to 1 John 5, and even Ambrose and Augustine who lived in the 4th Century, declare nothing against the comma. <br /><br />If it was an interpolation, would these men have declared it to be such? Maybe, maybe not. But we know according to evidence that we have today, they did not. However, these men clearly declare that the woman taken in Adultery in John 7:53-John 8:1-11, is the genuine utterance of the Holy Ghost, but the majority of scholars today, erroneously believe it was not. Therefore, even if we found clear undisputed evidence of Greek fathers attesting to the authenticity of the comma, it would not convince many of it being genuine. <br /><br />Therefore, to suggest that because they and other Greek Fathers to our knowledge today did not mention the comma in direct fashion, does not mean in anyway, shape, or form that they were against the reading of the comma. There is absolutely no evidence of this assertion. It is completely fallacious! <br /><br />As for your question, I believed I have answered it. The Greek fathers are not more authoritative than the Latin fathers. Bible preservation means that God can preserve His Word through many means, which he has done through Church fathers, versions, manuscripts, etc. <br /><br />Finally, as for Gregory speaking Greek, and thus his belief that there was no problem to the text, means that the grammar is correct, clearly is a fallacious argument. This is not evidence that Gregory was correct in his assertion at all, as he recognizes that the passage according to Greek grammarians does not line up with the rules of Greek grammar. <br /><br />Can someone whose first language is not English, grammatically correct a native speaking English person concerning the rules of English grammar? Yes, absolutely. Therefore, respectfully, this argument is fallacious, and the Grammar of the passage and context of 1 John 5:6-8 demands the Johannine Comma, or the record of the Heavenly Trinity, “…And these three are one” (1 John 5:7).Sean Bonittohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14565674140244508125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-32219175232214885952023-07-22T02:00:20.255-04:002023-07-22T02:00:20.255-04:00Hello Damien. As you know, as I have said previous...Hello Damien. As you know, as I have said previously, that there are multitudes of Greek copies the we no longer have in existence, and that few Greek copies that exist presently even contain 1 John. <br /><br />The fact that we have clear agreeable evidence of the comma in the 4th Century, (although I believe earlier church fathers quote the comma) dating back to the early church fathers, and were in the same century of Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus which does not contain the comma, along with the prologue of Jerome in Codex Fudensis that recognizes unfaithful translators that have omitted the comma, reveals to me, that the comma endured a clear attack in the manuscript transmission, especially in the Greek. <br /><br />To me, this would explain why today, there are few Greek copies that contain the comma. However, clear agreeable testimony of the comma dates back to at least the 4th century. Therefore the argument that no Greek copy reads like the comma version of today before Erasmus is misleading, due to the aforementioned evidence of the comma centuries before Erasmus. <br /><br />Also the fact that Erasmus in his later editions of the TR, along with Stephens, and Beza in their respective Received Texts, along with the scholars who translated the King James Bible, after examining the evidence of manuscripts, quotations of early church fathers, and the grammar of the passage, etc, clearly retained the testimony of the Heavenly witnesses of 1 John 5:7. <br />Sean Bonittohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14565674140244508125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-60749803626096753022023-07-12T08:20:51.579-04:002023-07-12T08:20:51.579-04:00I keep seeing the argument that the grammar demand...I keep seeing the argument that the grammar demands it. I don't speak Greek so I can't weigh in on the grammar rules but this much I can say. Scrivener who was well verses in Greek didn't believed it belonged and he is very well versed in the Greek:<br /><br />“We are here treading over the ashes of many a fiery debate, but the flame which once raged so fiercely is well-nigh extinct. It may be doubted whether a single person now living, who is capable of forming an intelligent judgment on critical subjects, believes or professes to believe in the genuineness of that interpolated gloss, familiarly known as the ‘Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses’…. That it has no right to hold a place in the body of Scripture we regard as certain.” - Scrivener 1880<br /><br />Also the majority text, the byzantine text, was compiled by Greek speaking people. Thousands of manuscripts don't contain the Comma by people who speak Greek fluently. I have to imagine if the Greek demanded verse 7 in order to be grammatically correct, Scrivener and the Byzatine people would have recognized the grammatical insufficiency of the missing verse 7. As would have Erasmus.<br /><br />I just do not believe the grammatical argument works especially if you are not fluent in Greek and they all are. They clearly have no issue with verse 7 being absent grammatically. <br />Eric Couturehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06442309462900151722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-18573402135302469992023-07-12T06:16:29.227-04:002023-07-12T06:16:29.227-04:00Hi Sean,
1. I’m not surprised that you can find L...Hi Sean,<br /><br />1. I’m not surprised that you can find Latin manuscripts containing the comma after the 5th century. What I am surprised is that there is no Greek manuscript in the world that fully reads like the comma before the time of Erasmus. This is overwhelming, indeed.<br /><br />2. You cite a passage from the city of God from Augustine that does not read like the comma at all and has no indication that Augustine himself is quoting from 1 John against Augustine himself elsewhere saying that he is quoting from 1 John and he does so without the witness “on earth”. <br /><br />3. My evidence for the assertion that the comma is a Latin corruption is the fact that there is no Greek manuscript in the world that reads exactly like the comma of Erasmus before the time of Erasmus, not to mention the versional evidence against it. Plus the Greek fathers against it, heavy-weight Latin fathers who knew Greek against it like Ambrose, Augustine and Bede and the instability of the reading even in the Latin writers of the 5th century. Conjecture without any evidence at all? By the way I’m noticing that you didn’t answer my question on the preservation being in the church with Ambrose and Gregory of Nazianzus or outside the church with Priscillian.<br /><br />4. Jerome is complaining of the instability of the Latin texts, thus justifying his work of going back to the ancients copies of the Greek text and he was sharply criticized for supposedly changing the word of God that people back then thought to be preserved in their Latin copies. See the authority of the Greek text over Latin translations in our Jerome and how it differs from your notion of preservation?<br /><br />5. I’m aware of the false story about Erasmus that he didn’t promise to include the comma if he was shown a Greek manuscript supporting it. And I was careful when I was writing to be faithful to the historical data. Even though he didn’t promise anything, the fact remains that he didn’t include it in the first 2 editions because he found no support for it in Greek manuscripts. Then it was brought to his attention minuscule 61 that is a manuscript probably of the 1500’s whose reading is not exactly like the TR. <br /><br />6. I also reject several Alexandrian readings contained in the NA. But the absence of the comma is not dependent upon the Alexandrian text at all. It’s absent also from the majority text, which is Byzantine and from Theophylact that was a strong reference for Erasmus when it comes to the Greek text.<br /><br />7. About the Greek grammar, Gregory of Nazianzus does not think that there’s is no way around the masculine participle and the three complements in neuter but once you begin to disqualify the testimony of a Greek speaking father in the 4th century who grew up speaking Greek, wrote in Greek, dreamed in Greek, went to Church to have the scriptures read in Greek and so on then I agree that there’s no more way around this.Demianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03098425683385627645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-76642829850583442112023-07-12T02:06:24.091-04:002023-07-12T02:06:24.091-04:00The same can be said concerning Erasmus, Beza, Ste...The same can be said concerning Erasmus, Beza, Stephens. To clear up the confusion concerning Erasmus, even Bruce Metzger who does not support the comma, clears up the false story of why Erasmus included the comma, "What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus' promise to include the Comma Johanneum if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent suspicion that MS 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H. J. DeJonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion." Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of The New Testament, 3rd Edition, p 291 fn 2.<br /><br />The comma was not in many manuscripts as I stated before, but was still preserved in some. Just as 1 John is not in the majority of Greek manuscripts, but has been preserved in some. Therefore, the Word of God was preserved throughout all generations. Also the false Roman Catholic Church did not even allow people to read the Bible for centuries, but it was still preserved through Greek, Latin, Bible Versions, Early Church Fathers, and Lectionaries (ex: Apostolos or Collection of Lessons- 5th century Greek Lectionary). Again, neither Greek or Latin fathers has a monopoly on preservation, but God alone (Matthew 24:35). Therefore, I do not see how the comma has survived until this present time, but for the providence of the Lord Jesus Christ who has sustained it, and kept it (Matthew 24:35). <br /><br />I know that the NA text was obviously not completed during the time of Erasmus, Stephens, Beza, etc, but they were certainly familiar with readings contained in the NA text, and refused them based on the evidence, and retained the johannine comma in their respective Received Texts. <br /><br />It is of no consequence Grammatically whether or not the subject is before the particle, as 1 John 5:6 clearly refers to the Witness of the Holy Ghost as neuter and not masculine. The Holy Ghost is personalized and yet the passage in the Greek did not change the particle from neuter to masculine. As the reading stands in the NA text, there is no justification according to the rules of Greek grammar, that would constitute applying the masculine gender to three neuters for no apparent reason, especially when it was not done so in 1 John 5:6 with the Holy Spirit. However, when the comma is applied, all makes sense, the three Heavenly witnesses which are masculine, the Spirit also is attributed the masculine gender by the law of attraction, give the earthly witnesses, the masculine Gender due to the Heavenly witnesses of verse 7. <br /><br />There is no way around this. This fact is clear, and the Grammar of the Greek language demands the comma. Hallelujah! <br /><br />Lastly, my point with Bishop Middleton and Gregory, are that they are both exposing the Grammatical difficulty of the passage if the comma is not included. While they may be focused on different areas of the passage, both are acknowledging that the passage of 1 John 5:6-8, does not line up grammatically without the comma. This does not mean that Gregory is arguing in favour of the comma, but that he recognizes that the Greek grammarians of his era, acknowledge that the passage makes no sense as it stands without the comma.Sean Bonittohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14565674140244508125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-18044880151604415502023-07-12T01:57:24.886-04:002023-07-12T01:57:24.886-04:00Hello Damien. While the Latin codex’s you mention...Hello Damien. While the Latin codex’s you mentioned F, in the 6th Century, and Amiatinus around 700AD, do not have the comma, the León Palimpsest a earlier Latin manuscript dated in the 7th Century, and the codex Codex Speculum dated in the same century as F, (5th Century), contain the comma, which textual evidence in favour of the comma, as most Latin manuscripts support the comma. Also F, contains the prologue by Jerome that the Johannine Comma is in fact genuine. <br /><br />The argument from silence was clearly referring to your statement that the Greek Fathers never mentioned the comma, nor quoted the comma. However, there is evidence that Augustine possibly quoted the passage, “Therefore God supreme and true, with His Word and Holy Spirit (which three are one), one God omnipotent…” The City of God section, from Book V, Chapter 11. <br /><br />Also, as I mentioned previously, I do not deny that they believed that the Spirit, water, blood represented the Trinity, but how did they ever come to this conclusion, when the context clearly does not directly teach this? This fact speaks in favour of the comma, fax I mentioned previously in my earlier comments, as there is absolutely no other reasonable explanation, that I can think of that would give them this explanation of the passage of 1 John 5:6-8. <br /><br />You state the comma crept into the Latin text. Where is your evidence for this? This is complete conjecture, without any evidence at all. Is it fair to say that we are no longer in possession of many Greek and Latin manuscripts today, that Jerome, and others would have procession in there era. Yes absolutely! <br /><br />Consider, the statement from Jerome, “ If, on the other hand, we are to glean the truth from a comparison of many, why not go back to the original Greek and correct the mistakes introduced by inaccurate translators, and the blundering alterations of confident but ignorant critics, and, further, all that has been inserted or changed by copyists more asleep than awake?… I therefore promise in this short Preface the four Gospels only, which are to be taken in the following order, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, as they have been revised by a comparison of the Greek manuscripts. Only early ones have been used” <br /><br />Jerome's Preface to the Vulgate Version of the New Testament Addressed to Pope Damasus, A.D. 383. <br />Sean Bonittohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14565674140244508125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-67100056206068160372023-07-12T00:03:58.110-04:002023-07-12T00:03:58.110-04:00Yes, Demian, we agree on Son = blood. Augustine wa...Yes, Demian, we agree on Son = blood. Augustine was mistaken on equating "water" in 1 Jn with Spirit. While it is true that the author of John's gospel equates "living water" with Spirit, he contrasts the "water" from Jacob's well (= the law and the prophets, alias "the Father's dispensation) with this "living water" that Jesus gives (Jn 4:10-15) (= the Spirit, Jn 7:39). As I have shown in my paper on the Cana Miracle, the author of John's gospel compares/contrasts the three dispensations of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the first 4 chapters of his gospel via his symbolic use of the word "water", which symbolizes the law and the prophets, alias Father's dispensation. <br /><br />Jn 1 he has the Baptist, who is being used as a personification of the law and the prophets, state 3x that he came baptizing with "water". The third time he adds concerning Jesus "the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit". So here we have Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.<br /><br />Jn 2 he has Jesus turn "water" (Father's dispensation) into "wine" (=Holy Spirit's dispensation). This is a very complicated intertextual allegory (You should read my paper on it on Academia). So here, too, we have Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.<br /><br />Jn 3 he has Jesus tell Nicodemus that he must be born of "water" (Father's dispensation) and Spirit. How? By believing in the One who has been lifted up- Jesus (Jn 3:14-15). So here, too, we have Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.<br /><br />Jn 4 he has Jesus tell Samaritan woman that "water" (Father's dispensation) from Jacob's well (OT patriarch) will not satisfy spiritual thirst. Only "living water" (Jn 4:10) that comes from Jesus can satisfy. So here, too, we have Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.<br /><br />Now, in 1 Jn 5 this author tells his readers that if you love the Father you will love the Son (1 Jn 5:1)- you will believe in Jesus. Then in 1 Jn 5:6, we are told that Jesus came by "water and blood"- "not by 'water' only, but by 'water' and blood". Similar to what he had Jesus tell Nicodemus- you must be born by "water" and "the Spirit". "Water" = the Father's dispensation- is necessary, but not all that is necessary. You also need the 'blood" = Son's dispensation. You also need "the Spirit". And these three are one. And they have manifested themselves on earth and in heaven.<br /><br />MattMatthew Estradahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15059618198367717564noreply@blogger.com