The Peshitta

No plm! That's fine.

 

If you mean the Beza Text, IMO it is virtually identical to Scrivener's.

I know of a couple of differences, one really unusual.

I can't prove it because I don't possess a Beza, but in account of the burial of Jesus (Luke 23:53), I understand the Beza adds that the tomb stone was so big that it took 20 people to put it in place.

If I remember correctly there is also a difference in the Beza as to the infamous 666 of the Book of the Revelation. I believe the Beza writes it out in longhand while the other TR's use the ancient Greek shorthand number. I can't be sure.

HankD

[ September 08, 2003, 09:48 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Actually I believe that this passage is in the The Codex Bezæ Cantabrigiensis which he owned.

So I don't think the passage made it to his TR.

I'm still not sure about the 666 of Revelation.

HankD

 

ROFL!!!!

 

I think the distinction is especially important just now and within this controversy. By allowing KJVO's to claim this equivalence, we yield credence to their false premise giving them an open field to run in.

But even then it wasn't known as the "Textus Receptus". That phrase was an invention of the Elzevirs in 1633.

I personally am not convinced of the basic assumptions of the critical text proponents. At the same time, I don't think the Alexandrian family evidence should be ignored... just not automatically favored.

That sounds all but arbitrary... and I am not trying to be argumentative. I could not accept that choice due to the inclusion of the Johanine Comma and the uniquely Vulgate reading of the last 7 vss of Revelation.

Disclaimer: I believe in the Trinity and think the Johanine Comma is orthodox... just not original. I don't think its presence corrupts a Bible nor does its absence. The doctrine of the Trinity simply does not hang on one passage of scripture.

I would be far more apt to agree less the notable exceptions I gave above.

That sounds reasonable.

 

Scott,

I believe 1 John 5:7 is canonical.

True it is missing from all but 6 late Greek mss.

But of the 5000 mss only a fraction include 1 John.

I would have to check my Michael Maynard when I get home to give you the exact number. Yes, I know he has been “discredited” in some of his work, but that doesn’t surprise me. No sooner does a book hit the shelves (on either side of any KJVO issue) than the “discrediting” begins by the opposite side.

Most/many of the Old Itala mss includes the Comma in one form or another.
Several of the early NT writers call it Scripture starting with Cyprian (although some dispute this also).

Thin ice, but for now that’s my opinion.

HankD

 

There are over five hundred extant Greek MSS of 1 John. Of all these, only four contain 1 Jn. 5:7 as part of the actual text: 61 (16th C), 629 (14th-15th C), 918 (16th C), and 2318 (18th C). Four others have the Comma in the margin but NOT as part of the text: 88 (12th C., with the Comma in a 16th C. hand), 221 (10th C.), 429 (16th C), and 636 (15th C). This fact alone is a strong reason to suspect that the verse is a later addition to the text.

 

1. The Old Latin antedates the Greek manuscripts of North Africa, Sinaiticus (trash can version) and Vaticanus (Revelation 17:9) by more than 100 years; and many writers on the Old Latin insist that they were 200 years older than the Greek texts used for the NASV & NRSV.


2. Some of the readings that are older than Sinaiticus (TCV) and Vaticanus (Rev 17) are Acts 9:6-6; 20:28. Romans 16:25-27;Matthew 10:8; Acts 8:37;John 3:25;Revelation 22:14;and 1st John 5:7.


3. There are no Greek manuscripts (early or late) that reads like the NASV reads in Luke 1:25,18,21,31; 1st Thess 1:6, 3:3, 2:13; Hebrews 1:13,Acts 13:47,13:39; 10:16,10:13; Phil 1:8.



Not to mention:
1. Cyprian cites it in A.D. 250.


2. Priscillian and Clarus cite it in A.D. 385,within 40 years of what happened in North Africa as per Jeremiah 36.


3. Cassiodorius cites it in A.D.550, and is found in the Old Latin manuscripts of the fifth century.


4. The King James reading is found in a Greek manuscript (Ravianus) and is also found in the margin of two cursives (88,629) Greek manuscripts.


5. By omitting the passage, they have constructed a sentence where three neuters (Spririt, Water, and Blood) have to be treated as masculine. Personilization brought about no change in the gender of the Holy Spirit in verse 6,so this tripe is to be rejected.


6. The obvious reasons for the masculine sense is because the words “Father” and “Word” are both masculine, and were in the passage until the followers of Jehudi (Jer 36) took them out. Take out “Father” and “Word” and you will have grammatical drivel.

 

Cyprian in 250 AD ( EARLIEST!) witnessed this doctrine of Trinity. Amen!

 

1. The Old Latin antedates the Greek manuscripts of North Africa, Sinaiticus (trash can version) and Vaticanus (Revelation 17:9) by more than 100 years; and many writers on the Old Latin insist that they were 200 years older than the Greek texts used for the NASV & NRSV.

2. Some of the readings that are older than Sinaiticus (TCV) and Vaticanus (Rev 17) are Acts 9:6-6; 20:28. Romans 16:25-27;Matthew 10:8; Acts 8:37;John 3:25;Revelation 22:14;and 1st John 5:7.</font>[/QUOTE]The Old Latin MSS are also notorious for their paraphrases and additions to the text. For example, in the text of 1 John alone, the Old Latin additons are found in the following sources:

1 Jn. 2:5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him [[if we have been made perfect in him.]] -- Old Latin t; Vulgate MSS; Augustine "Homilies on First John," 1.9.

1 Jn. 2:17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever [[just as God himself remains forever.]] -- Old Latin t; Vulgate MSS; Augustine "Homilies on First John," 2.14; Cyprian "On the Lord's Prayer," 14.

1 Jn. 2:26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you [[so that you may know that you have an anointing.]] -- Augustine "Homilies on First John," 3.12

1 Jn. 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son [[whom he sent upon earth as a Saviour. And the Son gave testimony on earth fulfilling the Scriptures; and we offer testimony since we have seen him, and we proclain to you that thus you may believe.]] -- Beatus, "Ad Elipandum " 26; Vulgate MSS.

The evidence strongly suggests that the Johannine Comma was one of these Old Latin additions to the text.

It's not at all clear that Cyprian is citing the Comma, since the wording of Cyprian's citation in the Latin is identical to that of 1 Jn. 5:8 in many of the Old Latin MSS.

The Spanish heretic Priscillan's citation ("Liber apologeticus" 1.4) is the first indisputable reference to the Comma. There's no clear evidence of its existence anywhere before the 4th C., and the sources that do have it after that time are primarily from the Latin West. This strongly suggests that the Comma was originally added to the Western Latin text of 1 John sometime in the 4th C.

Codex Ravianus is a forgery. As the early 19th C. Biblical commentator Adam Clarke observed: "The Codex Ravianus or Berolinensis, which is a forgery, and only a copy of the Greek text in the Complutensian Polyglot, printed in 1514, and so close an imitation of it, that it copies even its typographical errors; hence, and from the similarity of the letters, it appears to have been forged that it might pass for the original MS. from which the Complutensian text was taken. In this MS. some various readings are inserted from the margin of Stevens’ edition of 1550." ("Commentary on First John").

MS 88 is a 12th C. MS with the Comma written in the margin in a 16th C. hand, while MS 629 is a late 15th-early 16th C. copy. Neither of them is "early" by any stretch of the imagination.

What is "grammatical drivel" one one level may be intended as profound theological truth on another. In Mt. 28:19, we are commanded to baptize "in the NAME of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." On one level, this is "grammatical drivel" because "name" is singular even though it should be plural because three names are mentioned. But the deeper theological truth presented to us is the doctrine of the Trinity -- three persons, one God. Similarly, in 1 Jn. 5:7-8 without the Comma, "three" is masculine while "Spirit," "water," and "blood" are neuter. On one level, this is "grammatical drivel" because the adjective "three" would normally agree with the nouns it modified. But the deeper theological truth presented to us is the doctrine that God is *personal* -- hence, a masculine rather than a neuter adjective.

 

ce 250 Cyprian De catholicae ecclesiae unitare
‘The Lord says I and the Father are one, and likewise IT IS WRITTEN
of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and these three are one.

ce 380 Priscillian Liber Apologeticus
As John says “and there are three which give testimony on earth the water , the flesh
And 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”

ce 450 North African author Contra Varimadum
And John the Evangelist says “in the beginning was the word and the word was with God
And God was the word”. And also He says to the Partheans, “there are three who give testimony on earth, the water , the blood and the flesh And the three are in us. And there are three who give
Testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Spirit and these three are one.”

ce 485 Victor Vitensis Historia persocutionis Africanae Provincia
And in order that we may teach until now, more clearly than light, that the Holy Spirit is now one divinity with the Father and the Son. It is proved by the testimony of the evangelist John, for he
Says “There are three which bear testimony in heaven , the Father , the Word and the Spirit and these three are one”

ce 527 Fulgentius Responsio contra arianos
Therefore in the Father and Son and the Holy Spirit we accept the unity of substance, we do not dare confuse the persons, for the blessed John the Apostle gives testimony saying “There are three who bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Spirit and these three are one.”

Other citations of I John 5:7 which identify the verse as Scripture:

Ce 636 Isidore of Seville.
Ce 650 The Leon palimpsest.
Ce 850 The Ulmensis MSS.
Ce 1120 Waldensian Apostle’s Creed
Ce 1150 Codex Demidovianus, Codex Divionensis. Codex Colbertinus
Ce 1170 Waldensian old French NT translation (reportedly from greek mss)
Nolan, Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text, xviii.

And several others.

Do your own research on any of these witnesses and you will not only find opinions like Archangel's but also of the oppostite mind, decide for yourselves exercising your Soul Liberty.

HankD

[ September 10, 2003, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Cyprian's citation is uncertain because it is not at all clear whether the words he is actually quoting from 1 John are from the disputed Comma or from the undisputed sentence next to it.

There are numerous variations of 1 Jn. 5:7-8 in the Old Latin texts, both with and without the Comma. The basic reading of the form with the Comma (with some variation) is:

"Tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in terra, spiritus (et) aqua et sanguis, et (hi) tres unum sunt; et tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in caelo, pater (et) verbum et spiritus, et (hi) tres unum sunt."

"There are three who bear witness on earth, [the] Spirit (and) [the] water and [the] blood, and ([the]/these) three are one; and there are three who bear witness in heaven, [the] Father (and) the Word and the Spirit, and ([the]/these) three are one."

The basic reading of the Old Latin text *without* the Comma (again, with some variation) is:

"Tres sunt qui testimonium dant, spiritus (et) aqua et sanguis, et (hi) tres unum sunt."

"There are three who bear witness, [the] Spirit (and) [the] water and [the] blood, and ([the]/these) three are one."

Compare both forms with Cyprian's quotation:

"Dicit Dominus: 'Ego et pater unum sumus;' et iterum de Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto, scriptum est: 'Et tres unum sunt.'" ("De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate," 6).

"The Lord says, 'I and [the] Father are one;' and again of [the] Father, [the] Son, and [the] Holy Spirit it is written: 'And [the] three are one.'"

Since the *only* words Cyprian explicitly quotes from 1 John following the introductory formula "scriptum est" ("it is written") are "et tres unum sunt" ("and [the] three are one"), and since those words appear in forms of the Old Latin text both *with* and *without* the Comma, we have no certain way of knowing which form Cyprian used.

As for the other citations, the earliest is Priscillan's, and it unquestionably quotes the Comma. So the earliest hard evidence we have of the Comma's existence is in the Latin West in the 4th C. A.D.

 

In my opinion it is weighted towards the 1 John 5:7 comma verse because of the Trinitarian formula "Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto" rather than the symbolism of "spiritus (et) aqua et sanguis" especially after the "scriptum est".

HankD

 

In my opinion it is weighted towards the 1 John 5:7 comma verse because of the Trinitarian formula "Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto" rather than the symbolism of "spiritus (et) aqua et sanguis" especially after the "scriptum est". </font>[/QUOTE]The exact wording of the Comma is "the Father, the *Word*, and the Holy Spirit." If Cyprian had said "of the Father, the *Word* and the Holy Spirit it is written," then it would be certain that he was citing the Comma. However, he didn't. So we have absolutely no way of knowing whether he was citing the phrase "et tres unum sunt" from a Latin Bible with 1 Jn. 5:7 in it or whether he was citing the phrase from a Latin Bible with only 1 Jn. 5:8 in it and giving it the phrase "the Spirit, the water, and the blood" a Trinitarian interpretation.

The clincher for me comes from the witness of Cyprian's contemporary, the anonymous writer of "De Rebaptismate," who cites the passage as follows:

'For John says of our Lord in his epistle, teaching us: “This is He who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood: and it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For three bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one.”' (On Rebaptism, 15)

So here we have a quotation of 1 Jn. 5:6-8 in its entirety from a work written as a direct response to Cyprian by someone who lived at the same time (early 3rd C.), in the same locale (North Africa), and who used the same language (Latin), and it does *not* have the Comma. This would strongly suggest Cyprian's text didn't have it either.

 

This seems to me not to be a clincher for this reason:

The subject is (re)baptism and not the Trinity, the anonymous writer has no need to quote verse 7.

HankD

 

This seems to me not to be a clincher for this reason:

The subject is (re)baptism and not the Trinity, the anonymous writer has no need to quote verse 7.

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]Doesn't it strike you as odd that the *only* words not found in this citation of 1 Jn. 5:6-8 are those corresponding *exactly* to the words of the disputed Comma? Or that these words -- which echo the Trinitarian baptismal formula used throughout the Western church (cf. Mt. 28:19) -- would be left out of a discussion on rebaptism?

 

First and foremost, the weakness of your point is illustrated in that you have to make an appeal outside of the Cyprian quote in question to an anonymous and spurious treatise.

Second and concerning this new extract; I suppose (worst case) an evidential argument could be made that the anonymous writer of this spurious treatise had a 1 John that was missing the verse 5:7 Comma while Cyprian possessed one in which it was present.

HankD

 

I have grown to respect your opinions and knowledge as well as your temperance on this issue. However, I think you are pushing this point a little too far. Even if Cyprian was quoting directly from a Latin translation in 250 AD, it remains very weak support for the Comma weighted against all of the other witnesses.

A concrete, indisputable example of an early church father citing this passage in defense of the Trinity has yet to be given. Even the evidence cited by you leans against the Comma. You cite Cyprian (which is at the very least debatable) then no one else for 130 years. It seems very unlikely that the verse would have been acknowledged as canonical without:

1- the Greek being corrected back to the original form if not before the arian heresies, surely during or after.

2- numerous citations of such a direct declaration when dealing with anti-trinitarian heretics.

But the most this could do to support the Comma is prove that some Latin versions contained it while others didn't. That does the Comma's case great harm in that if it were universally accepted even within the Latin world it would appear at least as a correction.

As I said before, I think you are right on many issues including your suspicion of the assumptions of many modern textual critics but the case for the Comma is extremely weak in comparison to the case against it.