1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Question about textual difference

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by mcgyver, Apr 7, 2005.

  1. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Could the supposed early witnesses be the actual source for the comma rather than witnesses to it? I mean, could the comma be a sermon not or commentary that was introduced into one thread of transmission.

    Accepting the facts as you state them, wouldn't the lack of widespread support bear weight against its originality.

    I agree with you completely about it causing no harm to the text and teachings of scripture except for one thing. The JW's use it as a supposed case where Christendom has deceived the masses. They have pamphlet devoted to a critical analysis of the comma to get people to doubt anyone who has ever taught them about Christianity.

    Of course, when it is discluded they use that to their advantage too.
     
  2. icthus

    icthus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    What are you referring to?
     
  3. icthus

    icthus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    What are you referring to?
     
  4. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You know the old saying, "Anything is possible" but I don't have any evidence to suggest that is the case.

    I don't think the comma lacks wide spread support in the oldest manuscripts. They are very rare so it is almost impossible to say which direction they point. Also, the non-Greek witnesses are overwhelmingly in support of the comma, from early vernaculars to patristic quotes.
    Any critical analysis of the comma would have to include the problem with gender discordance, which they don't, so I will have to question how "critical" their analysis really is. [​IMG]
     
  5. mcgyver

    mcgyver New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    340
    Likes Received:
    0
    Unfortunately the JWs know the lie better than most Christians know the truth.....(heavy sigh).

    Anyway back to the subject at hand...

    TCassidy and Icthus, I appreciate your answers (as I do all who have responded.)
    Let me ask you this in reference to the comma: Are there any extra biblical attestations in the writings of the "early church fathers" that would lend credence to the inspiration of the comma?
    Evidence that they were familiar with that particular verse?
     
  6. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I posted
    Some of the others would be Prisciallian in "Liber Apologeticus" in the 4th century, and, of course, Gregory of Nazianzus has already been mentioned, also 4th century, Jerome in the prologue to "The Canonical Epistles" also 4th century, and Pelagius, 4th century.
     
  7. mcgyver

    mcgyver New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    340
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks, you did indeed post that info earlier!
    Methinks I need to take a break... [​IMG]
     
  8. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    957
    Likes Received:
    15
    This is perhaps the best defense of the Johannine Comma I've ever seen posted on a message board. As I'm interested in transcriptional probabilities and transmissional probabilities, I'd like to know which Greek MSS omit the comma but have EN TH GH as a possible missing link for the possible h.t. error to have occurred.

    Yours, Bluefalcon
     
  9. El_Guero

    El_Guero New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    McGyver,

    The Apostles were not busy fighting heresy that denied the diety of Christ. Therefore, their terminology was much like our terminology today (generic description of Christ as God). Maybe you should see if the Early Church Fathers thought Jesus was God? The early Church Fathers (students of the disciples) clearly wrote that Jesus was God ... as they went to their deaths. Here are two examples from Ignatius. I have compared the internet translations to the Greek Text found in: Lightfoot J. B. translator. The Apostolic Fathers. 2d ed. Baker Book House. 1992.

    E.g., Ignatius - Page One Historical background: web page

    From "Letter to the Romans", J B Lightfoot translater

    To Polycarp: I bid you farewell always in our God Jesus Again, J B Lightfoot Translator.
     
  10. icthus

    icthus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    In the 5th century, when the majority of the Christian world was feeling the weight of the Arian heresy, the Orthodox Church, represented by about 400 Bishops, presented the Arian king, Hunneric, who was a bitter opponet of those who professed Jesus Christ, whith a "Confession of Faith" In this "Confession" we read the following:

    "Ut adhuc luce clarius unius divinitatis esse cum Patre et Filio Spiritum Sanctum doceamus, Joannis Evangelistae testimonio comprobatur. Ait namque, tres sunt, qui testimonium perhibent in coelo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus, et hi tres unum sunt" (Historia Persecutionis Vandalicae, p.29. edit. Ruinart)

    For those who don't understand Latin. The English is as follows:

    "That we may further show it to be clearer than the light, that the divinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one, we have the testimony of the Evangelist John; where he says: - There are Three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one"

    The circumstances in which this Confession of Faith was drawn up, and then delivered to Hunneric, at whose hands the Orthodox suffered great persecuation, make it highly unlikely that they would have risked presenting a document that was based on something that was not Scripture. There is no problem with this Confession being drawn up by Bishops of the Latin Church, as there is clear evidence that many of these used the Greek Scriptures. However, it was Latin, that was the main language at this time, and understood by the king.

    It should be noted, that this Conference was held in Carthage in North Africa in A.D.483. This is where Cyprian was Bishop until his death in 258 A.D. Cyprian, who also was from the Latin Church, nonetheless was fluent in Greek, but used Latin, as this was the principal language in North Africa at this time. He wrote:

    "Dicit Dominus, ego et Pater unum sumus: et iterum de Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est, et tres unum sunt" (De Unitate Eccles. Op. p.109)

    "The Lord says, I and the Father are one ; again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and these three are one"

    Where else, but 1 John 5:7 could Cyprian be referring to? It has been argued, that Cyprian was actually referring to verse eight, and using a Mystical interpretation for "the Spirit, the water, and the blood". Two facts disprove this theory. Firstly, if Cyprian were referring to verse eight, then he could not have written, "et tres unum sunt"; as the eight verse, as found in another writer's work at the time of Cyprian, sows that the eight verse corresponds to the Greek: "et tres in unum sunt". Secondly, The use of "the Spirit" in the entire passage of 1 John 5, clearly refers to the Holy Spirit, and, since Cyprian in his quotation has "Patre" (the Father) first, he could NOT have applied the Father to the Holy Spirit. This is heresy.
     
  11. mcgyver

    mcgyver New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    340
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good morning El Guero,

    I have no doubt that the early church fathers (with the notable exception of a few heretics who would not be considered church fathers) ascribed to what we would term orthodox Christianity (The Trinity, Deity of Christ, etc.). I have been curious as to why in the course of transmission such a definitive statement of the nature of the Triune God would have been omitted.
    The omission of the Johannine Comma in no way changes/affects the doctrine of the trinity revealed in the scripture, but it seems to me the inclusion of the comma would have served to present the trinity in a clear and understandible way to the gentiles; who did not have the Jewish background that alludes to the trinity.
     
  12. mcgyver

    mcgyver New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    340
    Likes Received:
    0
    Icthus:
    Thanks for your answer.....

    What would be your take on the question of omission asked above?
     
  13. El_Guero

    El_Guero New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    McGyver,

    Have no idea what fish you are trying to catch and fry ... sorry, but the best that I can say is: "The early Church Fathers stated it just like we do today - interchangeably. We interchange the terms all the time. Once you get "The Trinity", there really is not an easier way to express it." IMHO

    And I doubt that the average Jew found the Trinity easy to understand. I know that I don't find the concept easy to understand ...
     
  14. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,534
    Likes Received:
    21
    1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
    5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth,
    the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (KJV, 1769, with the Johannine Comma in bold type).

    TCassidy wrote,

    Dear Sir,

    I find this post to be most disturbing! I find it to be most disturbing because it is absolutely hogwash! When we parse 1 John 5:7-8 we find,

    hoti = conjunction
    treis = adjective, nominative plural masculine
    eisin = verb, 3rd person present active indicative plural
    hoi = article, nominative plural masculine
    marturountes = present active participle, nominative plural masculine

    to = article, nominative singular neuter
    pneuma = noun, nominative singular neuter
    kai = conjunction
    to = article, nominative singular neuter
    hudor = noun, nominative singular neuter
    kai = conjunction
    to = article, nominative singular neuter
    haima = noun, nominative singular neuter
    kai = conjunction
    hoi = article, nominative plural masculine
    treis = adjective, nominative plural masculine
    eis = preposition
    to = article, accusative singular neuter
    hen = adjective, accusative singular neuter
    eisin = verb, 3rd person present active indicative plural

    There is no incorrect grammar being used here. Marturountes is masculine in gender and agrees in gender with hoi and treis which are also masculine in gender. All three of these words need to be masculine in gender to personify the three witnesses in order that they meet the requirement of the Torah for witnesses. Anyone who has made even a cursory study of 1 John is aware of this and to imply or suggest something to the contrary is worse than irresponsible.

    And not only that, even if you add the comma, which all Johannine scholars reject as a gloss, you still have the exact same grammatical situation with hoi and treis which are also masculine in gender even though their antecedents would still be exactly the same. Therefore, even is this was incorrect Greek, it would be just as incorrect with or without the comma . The fact is, however, that it is not incorrect Greek and you cannot quote one scholar of Greek grammar who says that it is incorrect Greek. It is merely an exception to general practice, and we find these exceptions throughout the New Testament. Even John himself sometimes used the masculine definite article to modify the neuter Greek word for Spirit, and he did so to personify the Holy Spirit in the context of referring to Him as our Paraclete. And many scholars of this epistle, including Raymond Brown and I. Howard Marshall, believe that we find a similar use of the masculine article in verse 8.

    [​IMG]
     
  15. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,534
    Likes Received:
    21
    I have spent many years studying Paul's Epistle to the Romans and I have read literally hundreds of commentaries and other writings on this epistle (I have 233 commentaries on Romans in my personal library), and I do not know of a single exegete of Romans today who believes that the last two phrases in Romans 8:1 are genuine. Indeed, they are unanimous in believing that these two phrases are a scribal gloss from Rom. 8:4. If they are all wrong [​IMG] , New Testament scholarship is in a VERY bad state of affairs :eek: .

    [​IMG]
     
  16. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,534
    Likes Received:
    21
    Back to 1 John 5:7-8 and the Johannine Comma for a moment,

    For those who are interested in an in depth study of this comma and its origin, Raymond E. Brown, in his 812 page commentary of the Epistles of John, includes an appendix in which he provides very much data that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the comma is a scribal gloss. He also provides a bibliography for further study of the comma.

    [​IMG]
     
  17. icthus

    icthus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Craig. Raymond Brown might have much data on this important passage, and conclude that they are a "scribal gloss". I have also spent on less than seven years in am indepth study on this verse, looking at manuscripts, ancient versions, the Church fathers in the Greek and Latin text, and a through examination to the internal Greek grammar, and would not consider myself any less qualified than Brown on textual matters. I, unlike Brown, have no doubt that the words are part of the Epistle of John, and would challenge ANY scholar to prove me wrong. I also would like to know (I don't have Brown's commentary), how Brown deals with the obvious problem with the Greek grammar with the disputed words removed.
     
  18. icthus

    icthus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Craig. Raymond Brown might have much data on this important passage, and conclude that they are a "scribal gloss". I have also spent on less than seven years in am indepth study on this verse, looking at manuscripts, ancient versions, the Church fathers in the Greek and Latin text, and a through examination to the internal Greek grammar, and would not consider myself any less qualified than Brown on textual matters. I, unlike Brown, have no doubt that the words are part of the Epistle of John, and would challenge ANY scholar to prove me wrong. I also would like to know (I don't have Brown's commentary), how Brown deals with the obvious problem with the Greek grammar with the disputed words removed.
     
  19. icthus

    icthus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dear Sir,

    I find this post to be most disturbing! I find it to be most disturbing because it is absolutely hogwash! When we parse 1 John 5:7-8 we find,

    hoti = conjunction
    treis = adjective, nominative plural masculine
    eisin = verb, 3rd person present active indicative plural
    hoi = article, nominative plural masculine
    marturountes = present active participle, nominative plural masculine

    to = article, nominative singular neuter
    pneuma = noun, nominative singular neuter
    kai = conjunction
    to = article, nominative singular neuter
    hudor = noun, nominative singular neuter
    kai = conjunction
    to = article, nominative singular neuter
    haima = noun, nominative singular neuter
    kai = conjunction
    hoi = article, nominative plural masculine
    treis = adjective, nominative plural masculine
    eis = preposition
    to = article, accusative singular neuter
    hen = adjective, accusative singular neuter
    eisin = verb, 3rd person present active indicative plural

    There is no incorrect grammar being used here. Marturountes is masculine in gender and agrees in gender with hoi and treis which are also masculine in gender. All three of these words need to be masculine in gender to personify the three witnesses in order that they meet the requirement of the Torah for witnesses. Anyone who has made even a cursory study of 1 John is aware of this and to imply or suggest something to the contrary is worse than irresponsible.

    And not only that, even if you add the comma, which all Johannine scholars reject as a gloss, you still have the exact same grammatical situation with hoi and treis which are also masculine in gender even though their antecedents would still be exactly the same. Therefore, even is this was incorrect Greek, it would be just as incorrect with or without the comma . The fact is, however, that it is not incorrect Greek and you cannot quote one scholar of Greek grammar who says that it is incorrect Greek. It is merely an exception to general practice, and we find these exceptions throughout the New Testament. Even John himself sometimes used the masculine definite article to modify the neuter Greek word for Spirit, and he did so to personify the Holy Spirit in the context of referring to Him as our Paraclete. And many scholars of this epistle, including Raymond Brown and I. Howard Marshall, believe that we find a similar use of the masculine article in verse 8.

    [​IMG]
    </font>[/QUOTE]Craig, this "absolutely hogwash", as you put it, is the absolute truth, and yet again proves your ignorance on matters you deal with. In this case being the Greek grammar of 1 John 5:7,8.

    Firstly, I cannot imagine that you understand Greek grammar. I am NOT talking about your ability of using Strong's Concordance, or an Analytical Greek Lexicon, or some Commentary, or word study book, like W E Vine's, etc. I refer to actual Greek grammar. I will now disprove your own "hogwash" that you have shown in your response to TCassidy.

    Your first error is in the use of "Personification". You say that John uses the masculine "treis eisin hoi martorountes", with the three neuter nouns "penuma, hudor, haima", is because: "All three of these words need to be masculine in gender to personify the three witnesses in order that they meet the requirement of the Torah for witnesses." This is what I would call "hogwash". Firstly, the use of "pneuma" in this entire passage refers to the Holy Spirit, Who is a Person regardless of the grammar. The noun "pneuma" is grammatically in the neuter, but this does not mean that a "thing" is spoken of, when use of the Holy Spirit. How can John "Personify", someone who already is a person?

    In verse six, we read: "...Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And the Spirit it is that bears witness, because the Spirit is the Truth" Here John writes: "to pneuma estin to marturoun" (the Spirit it is that bears witness). Now, check your Greek grammar here. You will see that the above sentence is used in the "Neuter gender". Here also, we have the SAME three neuter nouns. Why did John not use the masculine gender here, since the same Holy Spirit is used here? Did he not wish to "Personify" the three witnesses here? Here John keeps to the rules of the Greek grammar, by using neuter with neuter. Check these facts for yourself.

    Now, in verse seven we have the Greek "treis eisin hoi martorountes". The correct Greek grammar would here be: "tria eisi ta martorounta", which is also neuter, and has therefore "agreement of gender" between the nouns and the participle. Again, if you knew Greek grammar, you would see that what I have stated is 100% correct. John could ONLY have written "treis eisin hoi martorountes", becuase the preceeding nouns would have been "ho Pater, ho Logos", both in the masculine, where, even "to hagion pneuma", is in the neuter, yet the particlple would have been in the masculine, as the lead nouns in the grammar are masculine gender. Put back "the Father and the Word", and there is no problem. Remove them, and the Greek grammar is nonsense. Your argument is inconsistent with the rules of Greek grammer. Even if you get your information from some commentarym, then the source that you use, is very incorrect.

    No argument against the Greek grammar of 1 John 5:7-8 can stand, since the plain rules of Greek grammar insist that the disputed words are correct.

    I challenge you to prove me wrong
     
  20. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,534
    Likes Received:
    21
    If you were correct in your view of the Greek Grammar of 1 John 5:7-8, you would have no difficulty at all in citing both exegetes of 1 John 5:7-8 who agree with you and scholars of Greek Grammar who agree with you, but you can NOT cite even on scholar in either of these two categories. Indeed, you can NOT cite even one who agrees with you because your view is absolute nonsense.

    However I can will cite a number of scholars in both categories who share my view of the matter:

    Commentaries on 1 John:

    Karl Braune. Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Vol. 24, The First Epistle General of John. Reprinted in 1960 by Zondervan Publishing House.

    Rev. Canon A. E. Brooke, Fellow, Dean and Divinity Lecturer, King’s College Cambridge. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Johannine Epistles. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912.

    Raymond E. Brown. The Anchor Bible. Vol. 30, The Epistles of John. Garden City: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1982.

    F.F. Bruce. The Epistles of John. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970.

    Robert S. Candlish. A Commentary of 1 John, Vol. 2., Second Edition. Reprinted by Banner of Truth Trust, 1973. “I acquiesce of course in the rejection of the 7th verse, and of the words “in earth” in the 8th verse, as not in the original. I need not argue the point, for it is now all but universally accepted by intelligent critics.”

    J. L. Houlden. The Johannine Epistles. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1973.

    Joh. Ed. Huther. Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the General Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1883.

    John James Lias. An Exposition of the First Epistle of John. London: James Nisbet & Co., 1887. “The spuriousness of ver. 7 is a fact which, in the present stage of textual criticism, can hardly be said to admit of dispute.”

    I. Howard Marshall. The Epistles of John. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978.

    Stephen S. Smalley. Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 51, 1, 2, 3 John. Waco: Word Books, Publisher, 1984.

    B. F. Westcott. The Epistles of St. John. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1966.


    Greek Grammars:

    F. Blass, A. Debrunner, and Robert W. Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1961.

    J.D. Denniston. The Greek Particles. London: Oxford University Press, 1934.

    H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1927, 1957.

    James Allen Hewett. New Testament Greek. [/I] Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1986.

    James Hope Moulton. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Vol. III, Syntax, Nigel Turner. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963.

    James Hope Moulton. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Vol. IV, Style, Nigel Turner. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1976.

    Herbert Weir Smyth. Greek Grammar. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, Ninth edition, 1956.

    A. T. Robertson. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934.

    Daniel Wallace. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House, 1996.

    [​IMG]
     
Loading...