Comma Johanneum

I too voted 'I don't know'

 

I voted "no"
If it was, it would have been used to "Prove" the Trinity in the first 1000 yrs of Christianity... but NO where when studying church history has this verse been used by the early church to prove the trinity... It would have saved a lot of fighting if it had been in there.

 

Really, and how do you know that?

Actually, for many centuries it wasn't there. It is a late appearance in the text. So, if you are going to go with that line of reasoning, you would have to say it is not original.

 

There are 500 or so Greek mss that have preserved 1 John. Since no more than 2 percent may be argued to have contained the passage originally, one would have to concede that, if the passage is original, it is the most successful heretical corruption the Bible has ever seen, and that it was largely, no, overwhelmingly, successful. Certainly there would not have been an orthodox attempt to remove the passage, and it is easy to see why ancient Bible readers, if they found the passage in their copies, would have been unwilling to remove it, even if they thought that it was not original. What is hard to explain is why it was not inserted into more copies than it was. In addition, all of our experience (besides this one, if the passage is original) demonstrates that heretics were not successful in tampering with Scripture on a scale as large as this. It was rather the orthodox who attempted to corrupt the text albeit with motives they deemed holy and appropriate, but even they were not very successful (such as with this passage, if it is not original). Why? Because in the early years of the church the Greek ms copying process that simultaneously produced multiplying streams of mss all over the world so transcended any centralized system of conformation that no one person, group, or authority could ever control it. Nevertheless, I highly respect the opinion of J. A. Bengel, one of the premier text critics of all time, and others who have written in support of the passage.

Jonathan C. Borland

 

For the poll, I would have preferred more options:

1. Yes.
2. I think so.
3. I don't know.
4. I don't think so.
5. No.

For lack of #4 I chose #5.

 

Some will notice that the picture by my name is none other than J. A. Bengel!

 

Same with me. I would have rather said I don't think so.
I am not sure but what I have read indicates that it is not original.

As for those thinking that we should not attempt to find the originals, what better authority do you have?
No translation is accurate just because Still Learning thinks a particular demographic had a monopoly on Biblical truth to the exclusion of all others.

Any argument about what should be contained in the Bible should go back to the evidence that it was what The Bible originally said.
That may be easier said than done but it should not keep us from trying.

 

Yes it is authentic.

I believe God preserved 1 John 5:7 in the Old Itala, Latin mss, Clementine Vulgate and several Latin patristic fathers.

Look at the Traditional Text Greek and you will see why it would be so easy to gloss over it going from passage to passage and back again.

As a matter of fact verses 7 and 8 are reversed in some of the old itala texts.

It probably was a form of Homoeoteleuton which happened very early on in the scribal preservation of the Greek text.

Found in the public domain at: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/270472/homoeoteleuton

While the endings are not identical, they are very similar.

kai outoi oi treis en eisi
kai oi treis eis en to en eisen

I can't prove it, but I believe it is apostolic.


Some say it passes Burgon's seven tests of authenticity though Burgon himself seemed silent about the Comma.


Someone once told me he rejected it somewhere in his works, but I could never find that statement in his writings - but then again I haven't read everything as his writings are voluminous and a hard read as well. Some are yet to be published.


HankD

 

The NIV doesn't have it in the text, but in the footnotes. To me, either put it in or leave it out. Placing a footnote is a cop out.

 

An equally good conclusion would be that its been so successful partly because its not heretical at all even if it is a corruption of the original.

 

Then the KJV translators had a lot of "cop outs".:smilewinkgrin:

 

Good one --LOL!

 

We learned that 1 John 5:7 was there in earliest times then it was removed by 2 things: possible distracting by accident or nontrinitarian group deleted it. When Erasmus inserted 1 John 5:7 on 1522 Bible after he found more evidences, what is God's purpose to use him restoring this verse there?

If 1 John 5:7 was there, why is the agruement for it or against it still here?

If 1 John 5:7 was not there, the arguement would not be here thereafter.

 

So the KJ translators left a text out of their translation and then footnoted it? I must have missed that.

I love how people routinely bring up the KJ if anyone make a point against a single modern english translation. I wasn't even discussing the KJ. I was discussing the ridiculous position of leaving a text out of a translation because the translators didn't consider it original, but then footnoting it. That's just plain stupid. Either it should be in the bible, or it shouldn't. If you are going to not put it in (and they can do it if they want) then leave it out altogether.

 

Probably because every Critical Text I have ever seen includes the Comma in the apparatus referencing at least one of the 8 late Greek mss, usually the old itala (there are at least 4) , sometimes the Vulgate and one or more of the Latin fathers.

TCassidy mentioned A History of The Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8, Michael Maynard, Comma Publications.

Everyone who has any interest in the Comma Johanneum should get this book. Hopefully its still in print.

HankD

 

Ok then, the NASB translators had cop outs, too. That better?

 

It's called being honest. they are letting the reader know that there is a textual variant in the passage. the KJV translators did the same thing. (go find a KJV with the original marginal notes and you will know what I mean). And it's not stupid either, its again being honest with the reader that some manuscripts have the portion or don't have the portion, depending on the situation.

 

Here is a very detailed article on 1 John 5:7-8 that you scholars may not agree with, but you will surely enjoy.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/1john57-exegesis.htm