Featured The 'Johannine Comma', does it belong in the Bible?

No, the Apostles used certain parts of it in their books, but did not ever see it all as being inspired as the Masoretic OT text was!

 

Since you brethren have started discussing the canon of the Bible, it would be advisable to start another topic as you have drifted from the OP... Doesn't matter who starts it but another one is recommended... Brother Glen

 

That was excellent, especially the quote from Sirach 21:18. I would point out that many quotes from Origen really only proves that ONE Christian (Origen) believed that at least some Deuterocanonical books were scripture. That is a LONG way from your inference that it was the universal Christian position for 1500 years. For that matter, the Christian Churches that existed in 1400 (before we Protestants came along) disagreed on which books were to be included in the Deuterocanonical books. Wht didn't the Coptics get the same memo as Rome, or Rome the same memo as the Oriental Orthodox, etc.?

 

well, Jerome wanted to exclude those fake kids, but got overridden by the Pope!

 

Respectfully, you cannot possibly deny that books were rare items possessed my few of the millions living in Europe before the development of the printing press ... which comes after most of those 1500 years. The councils were NEVER made up of the masses of Christianity, they were ALWAYS a gathering of the ecclesiastic elite.

So I stand by my claim that most Christians during those 1500 years did not read the Deuterocanonical books for themselves, most people did not read the Gospels for themselves, most people did not read the Pauling letters for themselves ... so most people living in those 1500 years had no first hand opinion on the subject.

The Church Elite (see point 3) all accepted those Deuterocanonical books that the Pope and Mother Church said they should accept (or else) and they all rejected those other Deuterocanonical books that Mother Church said they should reject (or else). The decision of the NON-ECUMENICAL Councils is hardly a surprise.

 

Are you claiming absolutely no conflict between ANY teaching in ANY Deuterocanonical book and anything taught in a Gospel or Apostolic Letter?
All I claimed was SOME teaching in SOME Deutercanonical books contradicts the Gospels and Apostolic letters.
I did NOT claim that all teaching in all Deuterocanonical books contradicts the Gospels and Apostolic Letters.

People quote from a lot of things. The question is:

• Does Jesus say it is Scripture?
  
• Does Jesus imply that it is scripture?
  
• Does Jesus use it as He uses scripture? (Did Jesus rebuke Satan with a quote from Sirach?)

 

Irrelevant to me.
I am no more swayed by what rabbinical Judaism claims than I am about what traditions the Pope claims are true.
I want to know what God says about something, and so far the 66 book bible has been the best source for learning what God says for me.

 

Dead Sea Scrolls ... Modern Christians accept as Old Testament the books written in Hebrew and reject the books that appear to have been originally written in Greek. Septuagint vs Masoretic is a 'conspiracy theory' bunny trail. This is not 1800 arguing over a few medieval text fragments. We know a lot more about much older texts.

Besides, Jesus said Abel to Zachariah ... Genesis to Chronicles (no room for Maccabees).

 

Claiming that it does not appear in some manuscripts is disingenuous to say the least. The fact is it does not appear in the vast majority of manuscripts no matter which type. The Comma is omitted by the following manuscripts the bulk of which are Byzantine.

א A B K L P Ψ 048 049 056 0142 0296 1 2 3 4 5 6 18 35 36 38 42 43 51 57 62 69 76 81 82 88* 90 93 94 97 102 103 104 105 110 131 133 141 142 149 172 175 177txt 180 181 189 201 203 204 205 206 209 216 218 221* 223 226 234 250 254 256 263 296 302 307 308 309 312 314 319 321 322 323 325 326 327 328 330 337 363 365 367 368 378 383 384 385 386 390 393 394 398 400 404 421 424 425 429* 431 432 436 440 442 444 450 451 452 453 454 456 457 458 459 460 462 464 465 466 467 468 469 479 483 489 491 496 498 506 517 522 547 582 592 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 627 628 630 631 632 633 634 635 636* 637 638 639 641 643 656 664 665 680 699 720 743 757 794 796 801 808 824 832 876 901 910 912 913 914 915 917 919 920 921 922 927 928 935 941 945 959 986 996 999 1003 1022 1040 1058 1066 1067 1069 1070 1072 1075 1094 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1115 1127 1149 1161 1162 1175 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1270 1292 1297 1311 1315 1319 1352 1354 1359 1360 1367 1384 1390 1398 1400 1404 1405 1409 1424 1448 1456 1482 1490 1495 1501 1503 1505 1508 1509 1521 1523 1524 1548 1563 1573 1594 1595 1597 1598 1599 1609 1610 1611 1618 1619 1622 1626 1628 1636 1637 1642 1643 1646 1649 1656 1661 1668 1673 1678 1702 1704 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1757 1758 1761 1762 1763 1765 1767 1768 1769 1780 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1880 1881 1882 1885 1886 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1899 1902 1903 2080 2085 2086 2125 2127 2130 2131 2138 2143 2147 2180 2186 2191 2194 2197 2200 2218 2221 2242 2243 2255 2261 2279 2288 2289 2298 2344 2352 2356 2374 2378 2400 2401 2404 2412 2423 2431 2464 2466 2475 2483 2484 2492 2494 2495 2501 2502 2508 2511 2516 2523 2527 2541 2544 2554 2558 2587 2625 2626 2627 2652 2653 2674 2675 2691 2696 2704 2705 2712 2716 2718 2723 2736 2746 2774 2776 2777 2805

Above I count ca. 490 manuscripts omitting the Comma (again vast majority of which are Byzantine). The Comma is found in 10.

629, 61, 429, 918, 2473, 2318, 177, 221, 88, 636

Of those 10 it is found in the margin of 5.

GA 629 is the oldest Greek manuscripts which has the Comma in the body of the text (A.D. 1362).

Two of the above are dated to the 1500s (i.e. 61 and 918), one dates to the 1600s (i.e. 2473), and another dates to the 1700s (i.e. 2318).

The Comma is not quoted by any Greek father and Priscillian (4th century) is the first undisputed citations of the Comma in the West.

In another thread the author of this post states: "Its not about KJVO, but about the manuscripts used, and everyone agrees the Alexandrian ones show definite issues which cause problems."

Are Doctrines affected by Modern Versions?

Clearly that is not the case. The truth is it was never about the Alexandrian text. Even when the Byzantine text overwhelmingly supports the Alexandrian text, it does not matter.

 

Is the Priscillian citation an indication that a manuscript WITH the comma in the text existed in the 4th Century? (Pushing it back far earlier than the extant manuscript from AD 1362.)

 

No it would not. You bring up an interesting point. I thought I would compare Priscillian Latin text with that of the Vulgate.

The first thing to note is that Priscillian introduces his text with "As John said" (sicut Iohannes ait).

The next thing to notice is that verses 7 and 8 are reversed in Priscillian. I have color coded the verses (blue = verse 7, red = verse 8, green = not part of the Latin or Greek).

English - New Testament
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood, and these three agree in one.

English - Priscillian
As John says, "There are three that give testimony in earth: the water, the flesh and the blood and these three are one. And there are three that give testimony in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Spirit: and these three are one in Christ Jesus."

Latin - Vulgate
Quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium dant in cælo pater, verbum, et spiritus sanctus et hi tres unum sunt et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis et hi tres unum sunt

Latin - Priscillian
tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in terra aqua, caro, et sanguis, et haec tria in unum sunt et tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in caelo pater, verbum, et spiritus et haec tria unum sunt in Christo Iesu.


Now the Vulgate and Priscillian side by side.
(v. 7) et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra: spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis; et hi tres unum sunt (Vulgate has "spirit, and water, and blood")
(v. 7) tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in terra: aqua caro et sanguis; et haec tria in unum sunt (Priscillian has - "water, flesh and bood")

Clearly the above do not match word for word.

(v. 8) tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in cælo pater, verbum, et spiritus sanctus et hi tres unum sunt (Vulgate has "holy spirit")
(v. 8) et tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in caelo pater, verbum, et spiritus et haec tria unum sunt (Priscillian has "spirit")

in Christo Iesu (Not in the Greek or the Vulgate)

As I point out many scholars consider this the first undisputed citation. They are similar enough I suppose but they obviously are not identical. If Priscillian were quoting some Latin N.T. text it differed considerably from the Vulgate. Moreover Priscillian does not match the Greek text.

 

Who is "THEY"?

 

What @atpollard said, "who is "THEY"?

 

They didn't. I coverd this in post 14. You must not have read it.

First Cyprian:

(1) Cyprian has "the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." The Comma has "the Father, Word, and the Holy Spirit."

(2) Also note in the Latin before each noun there is an "and" (= et). The Greek text does not.

(4) The clause "and these three are one" appears in 1 John 5:8. It is part of the text and does not require the Comma.

(5) Specifically note what Cyprian does not have: (1) "For there are three that bear record in heaven," and (2) "the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood, and these three agree in one."

Now here is Cyprian's Latin and the Vulgate side by side.

ego et Pater unum sumus. Et iterum Pater et filio et spiritu sancto scriptum est: Et hi tres unum sunt (Cyprian)
et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra: spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis; et hi tres unum sunt (Vulgate)

It is not hard to see they don't really match.


Second, this is one so-called example of the Comma in Tertullian. He writes:

"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent persons, one from the other, which three are one, not one [person], as it is said, "I and my Father are One."

Here is the Comma.
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood, and these three agree in one.

As I pointed out in post 14, the sections in bold are found in the Greek text. It is the section in red which is in disputed. This information is necessary to know exactly what is and what is not the Comma. The Greek text has "For there are three that bear record the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood, and these three agree in one." This is no dispute concerning that.

However clearly this is not a quote of the Comma. In fact it is not even a quote at all. Tertullian is expressing his view of the trinity:

"Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete... ...which three are one, not one [person]"

This is a clear example of people twisting Tertullian's words in order to force them to fit the Comma in some way.

This is the problem with those who support the Comma. Any phrase, or word that might be even close in the Church fathers they seize no matter how flimsy the resemblance. Often to support their claim they will point to the phrase "these three are one." While this phrase is quote by many Church fathers IT IS NOT PART OF THE DISPUTED SECTION. That section is not part of the disputed text.

A more serious problem is the supporters of the Comma want to change the Greek text because of some quotes from the Latin Church fathers and the Latin text. As I said before, from a text critical perspective, that is a massively poor idea to even think of correcting the Greek text by following the Church fathers or Latin text. If you open the door to those sources for possible which are not found in the Greek text, it will lead to other reading which were never part of the Greek manuscript tradition. Might as well change the Greek text because of the Coptic, Syriac, or Ethiopic versions etc.

 

For a quote from John, I think I'd let "Word" = "Son" slide in this case ... yes Cyprian did not quote the text verbatim, but he didn't change the meaning either (given the strong opening to the Gospel of John).

Is the "and" (et) before each word significant?
In English, "Father and Son and Spirit" would be equivalent in meaning (if not form) to "Father, Son and Spirit".
Is Latin grammar different or are you just pointing out that it is clearly not a verbatim quote?

With respect to the other points you raised, I can't argue against the fact that the comma just doesn't seem to be there.

 

why would we not think of biblical textual criticism as we would any other ancient historical document? when we want what caesar wrote, would we try to get as close to his original writings, and view those copied into Latin as preferable to those recopied into English now?
Would we not want to get to the Koine Greek copies closest in age to the originals ,instead of relying upon Syrian or Coptic copiesmade centuries afterwards?

 

Well, it bothers me for this reason. It is the inconsistency of the so-called examples of the Comma. The readings are not really consistent from source to source to source. Any textual critic will tell you that is a serious problem.

Well we need not assume it is a quote from the Comma to do that. Both Cyprian and Tertullian quote John 10:30 (i.e. "I and the Father are one") within the immediate context and use that as their starting point. Also it has been pointed out by some scholars that Cyprian was one "who quotes copiously and textually." I, however, have not made that argument here.

Again it is not just the one thing but all the inconsistencies collectively. If there was only one or two problems, then one could we could chalk that up to simple scribal error, a mistake. The question is how close do two statements have to be in order to claim it is a direct quote? Or how close does one statement have to be in order to claim another statement was the source for the other? Those lines will shift depending on who one asks.

Just pointing out it is not a verbatim quote.

Again, the question is how close do two statements have to be in order to claim it is a direct quote? Or how close does one statement have to be in order to claim another statement was the source for the other? Those lines will shift depending on who one asks.

The problem is if we accept that Cyprian was a quote of the Comma, one has to wonder why it did not show up in the Greek manuscript for ca. 1300 years. If that is true, I don't see how we could ever have any faith in the Greek manuscript tradition.

 

And that last part of the postis where some get deluded into going down the KJVO yellow Brick road on textual criticism, as they want everything text wise to be "air tight"