Bibliological lip-service...

Originally posted by Harald:

I don't think Scrivener himself makes this claim, but I've seen others who use his TR make it.

The word violates the morphology of both the adjective ακαθαρτος and the noun ακαθαρτης. It would be the Greek equivalent of finding the non-English word "filthinessness" in an English translation of Rev. 17:4. And while this is not a theological or doctrinal error, it is still an error -- which disproves the claim that the TR is "without error."

To my knowledge, this word is found only in the TR, and then only in Rev. 17:4. While I have no way of proving this, my suspicion is that it's a printing error from Erasmus' first edition that escaped correction in subsequent editions of the TR.

"Tree of life" is the true reading of Rev. 22:19. The reading "book of life" is not found in any Greek manuscript of Revelation prior to Erasmus. Hoskier and Schmid are the only two scholars to have done a complete collation of all Greek manuscripts of Revelation, and there are only two which have the reading "book of life" -- minuscules 296 (Hoskier 57) and 2049 (Hoskier 141), both of which are 16th C. hand copied transcriptions of the text of the printed TR. This means neither are properly part of the ancient Greek MS tradition because they were made from the TR after the TR was printed. And minuscule 2067 is a 15th C. manuscript having "tree of life" in the actual text and "book of life" as a marginal note. The reading "book of life" shows up exclusively in Western Latin manuscripts and Fathers (and manuscripts later influenced by them) because of a scribal error in the transmission of the text. The Latin word for "tree" is ligno, which some scribe mis-copied as libro, the Latin word for "book." This corruption was made official in the Vulgate, which Erasmus back-translated from Latin into Greek for the last six verses of Revelation in his TR because his sole Greek copy of Revelation lacked those verses. The pedigree of the error is clearly traceable through the Old Latin to the Vulgate to the TR to the KJV.

Certainly there's a difference, but I think we need to put it into perspective. Does it affect any major Christian doctrine? No. Does whether or not I believe the correct reading is "book" or "tree" affect my salvation through faith in Jesus Christ? No. So the presence of a minor variant in the MS tradition need not disturb us -- particularly when the evidence in favour of "tree of life" is so strong that we can state with confidence it is the original reading.

[ March 02, 2003, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: Archangel7 ]

 

Harald wrote:

Would an "orthodox corruption" -- an addition to the text by a well-intentioned but mischievous scribe who wanted to make a passage "more orthodox" -- contitute an "error?"

[ February 23, 2003, 09:06 AM: Message edited by: Archangel7 ]

 

I did not in any way say what you are attributing to me. My statement conveyed nothing of the sort.

You made the statement that the UBS/NA texts have doctrinal and factual errors and my point was that each of these has already been proven to be a false charge. I did not say that all the readings are the authentic ones. We have no way of knowing that. The UBS/NA text is by far the best choice, followed by teh Majority Text (both there you must choose which method you prefer). The point is that these so called errors in the Greek text are not errors at all; they are variant readings.

Pickering is a questionable source as I understand it. I have read some of his critics. I will admit to not reading him. I have other more significant things to pursue at this time. But I think you misunderstood my point.

 

This is subjective to the seeker.
Cyprian (imo) is emphatic "it is written!" because he knew some were already questioning the verse.

My opinion as to its presence is different, it failed of the copied Greek mss because of a scribal gloss early on but remained in the Itala translation(granted some mss omit it, reverse the order of 7 and 8, and/or reword it) and as you indicate there is no definite article in Latin or Old Itala.

BTW archangel, you are a fresh wind blowing away the emtional smoke of "others" (not you Harald ).

Hmm, I'm in trouble now.

We (I anyway) appreciate your cool demeanor.

HankD

 

Correct, I have read at least one source which states that he was quoted by greek patriarchs (a seemingly unlikey thing) concerning the comma.
I'll make a search.

OK I'll edit this post.
Though a Latin writer, Tertullian in his Monogamia Chapter 11) indicates that he refers to "the original Greek" when quoting from Scripture not as I had indicated above.

HankD

 

This is subjective to the seeker.
Cyprian (imo) is emphatic "it is written!" because he knew some were already questioning the verse.</font>[/QUOTE]It's important to notice what Cyprian is quoting as Scripture and what he is not quoting as Scripture.

"The Lord says, [BEGIN QUOTATION] 'I and the Father are one;' [END QUOTATION] and again of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit it is written:[BEGIN QUOTATION] 'And these three are one.'" [END QUOTATION] (Cyprian, On the Unity of the Church 6)

Personally, I think it's more likely that Cyprian was quoting 1 Jn. 5:8 and giving it a Trinitarian interpretation rather than that he was quoting 1 Jn. 5:7. Elsewhere in his writings Cyprian does the same thing -- he sets off the actual words of Scripture with the formula "it is written," but prefaces the quotation with a comment of his own which gives his interpretation of what the verse is about. In one instance his introductory comment gives Jesus' words in Jn. 3:5 a baptismal interpetation even though there's nothing in the Biblical text explicilty mentioning water baptism:

'And therefore it behoves those to be baptized who come from heresy to the Church, that so they who are prepared, in the lawful, and true, and only baptism of the holy Church, by divine regeneration, for the kingdom of God, may be born of both sacraments, because it is written, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”' (Cyprian, Epistle 72.21)

In another instance Cyprian understands Song of Sol. 5:2 as referring to the Christian Church even though the Biblical passage is from a Hebrew love poem which says absolutely nothing explicit about the Christian Church:

'...the Christian, even though he is asleep with his eyes, ought to be awake with his heart, as it is written in the person of the Church speaking in the Song of Songs,” I sleep, yet my heart waketh.”' (Cyprian. On The Lord's Prayer 31)

Given that Cyprian clearly adds such interpretive comments elsewhere, it would be consistent with his observed pattern for him to have taken John's words about the "Spirit, the water, and the blood" in 1 Jn. 5:8 and given them a trinitarian "spin" in a passage where he holds up the unity of the Godhead as an example for the unity of the Church.

There's other evidence to suggest that the Old Latin text used in Cyprian's day did not have the Comma, though. Cyprian was an outspoken opponent of the re-baptism of heretics. An anonymous contemporary of Cyprian wrote a treatise entitled On Rebaptism as a further contribution to the debate. In it we find the following quotation:

'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 in a work likely written in 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 suggest Cyprian's text didn't have it either.

Thank you.

 

Originally posted by Harald:

The presence or absence of alleged errors, omissions, and additions to any Greek text must be assessed in a calm and reasoned way on a case-by-case basis. Again I would point out that many "errors" thought to be in the NA27 disappear when they are examined closely.

The Johannine Comma is one such scribal addition (at least, I believe the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that it's an addition to the text). Unquestionably it's good orthodox Trinitarian theology; however, that's not the issue. The issue is whether an addition to the original text of Scripture is a corruption of the text, even if that addition is scrupulously orthodox.

 

Archangel,
I for one agree with your last part of this statement although I disagree as to the authenticity of the comma, I believe it is God-breathed.

Thank you for the provocative thoughts.
I'm going back to my patristic reader (On hard-disk, its great) for additional insight.

HankD

 

Archangel,

You wrote…

He does however quote the Scripture without interpretation after the "it is written".

.

Granted that allusion is sometimes his style it is not always as observed above with the "baptism" quote.

Another look…

Cyprian 250AD
"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.'

That which follows the "it is written" - of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'

While this does have the look of an interpretive allusion, my view is that "the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" following the formula "it is written" indicates that he may very well have seen the literal as well as figurative persons of the Trinity in the comma.

Personally, and to be honest, given PERHAPS that the comma is a non-canonical addition here ,
then to me it seems more believable for one to say that he was conflating Matthew 28:19 here with 1 John 5:8.
But he makes no mention of Matthew and this gives me the impression of a fluid reading from 1 John.

I cede to the question of the Tertullian quote(s) because the evidence though generally positive in favor of the comma is indeed non-conclusive.

Though you gave me pause with your observations of the Cyprian quotes, my general impression of the comma stands.

Thanks again for the stimulating discussion.

HankD

 

Originally posted by HankD:

Yes, but which Scripture -- 1 Jn. 5:7 or 1 Jn. 5:8? We can't know for sure.

Yes, but again we can't know for sure -- which is why this alleged citation should be set aside as uncertain.

I don't think he was necessarily consciously conflating Mt. 28:19, although by Cyprian's day the trinitarian formula "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" would have been well-known through liturgical usage. I'm suggesting that Cyprian may have seen "the Spirit, the water and the blood" in his text of First John and connected it with "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" in light of the part he quoted: "and these three are one."

Even granting that Cyprian is quoting the Comma here, what does that prove? It proves that the Comma was known in the Latin West in the early 3rd C., but nowhere else before 600 A.D. The same problem remains, namely, how do we account for the fact that a text which would have been immensely helpful in the theological controversies of the 3rd and 4th C. is not found anywhere else in the ancient world prior to the 7th C.?

 

Granted it is "western". As to an accounting of its absence elsewhere, I previously gave my explanation that the "heavenly" witnesses possibly failed out of the copies of the Greek, maybe in the first generation, due to a scribal blunder.
But in the Itala translation (perhaps from the original itself) it was not glossed.

After this the eastern and western churches historically became progressively hostile to each other eventually resuting in the Schism, accounting for the lack of inter/intra church communications from 300-1000AD (roughly).

My theory, my opinion (possibly others).

HankD

 

Originally posted by HankD:

Granted it is "western". As to an accounting of its absence elsewhere, I previously gave my explanation that the "heavenly" witnesses possibly failed out of the copies of the Greek, maybe in the first generation, due to a scribal blunder.
But in the Itala translation (perhaps from the original itself) it was not glossed.

My theory, my opinion (possibly others).</font>[/QUOTE]Unfortunately, the theory is further weakened by what we know of the wild textual character of the Old Latin text. As an uncrontrolled popular text, it tended to gather numerous theologically motivated additions and glosses like the Comma. Below are some examples from the text of First John:

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.]] -- This addition is supported by the Greek Ψ; Old Latin t; Vulgate MSS; Augustine, Homilies on First John 1.9; Pseudo-Augustine; and Bede.

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.]] -- This addition is supported by the Old Latin t; Vulgate MSS; Coptic Sahidic MSS; Augustine, Homilies on First John 2.14; Cyprian, On the Lord's Prayer 14; and Lucifer of Caligari.

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.]] -- This addition is supported by 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.]] -- This addition is supported by Beatus, Ad Elipandum 26; Vulgate MSS; and Armenian MSS.

1 Jn. 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come [[and put on flesh for our sake, and suffered, and rose from the dead; he took us up]], and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. -- This addition is supported by Vulgate MSS; Julian of Toledo; Hilary of Poitiers; Pseudo-Augustine; and Virgilus of Thapsus.

Given the trend, it's far more likely that the Comma was a pious Latin Western addition of this same kind than an original clause which dropped out of the entire non-Latin MS tradition.

 

Perhaps, but the tenacity of the comma down to the 21st century speaks volumes compared to these other variants which have slipped away into the graveyard of history.

HankD

 

Originally posted by HankD:

I suspect that the tenacity of the Comma had to do with the fact that it proved theologically more useful than any other addition to the Latin text of First John.

 

Or its removal from the Greek...

HankD