Comma Johanneum

⇑⇑⇑⇑

I could be wrong but this does not look quite right to me. The numbers don't seem to add up with what I have read before.

 

Well, you know what they say, numbers never lie, but liars use numbers.

That was only part of the article, the writer has many other arguments besides these.

 

Of course, all of this relies on a view of inspiration that rests solely on the autographa. Why is it necessary for inspiration to rest only in the original writings, rather than the compilation of the final form? Is it not possible that the Comma Johanneum was indeed added later, but was nevertheless inspired by the Holy Spirit to be there?

I am unimpressed by textual critical sciences which are based more on secular methodologies for reconstructing ancient documents, than they are with discovering the precise words of God to man.

 

You know, I have heard that argument with this difference, it was John the apostle himself who added it several years later to defeat the idea of a division of the essence of the Trinity "these three are one". that is, the Godhead is singular and consists of three distinct persons not three separate persons.


HankD

 

Just reading the last two paragraphs is enough to debunk the credibility of the person who wrote the article.

Or maybe the various Waldensian editions simply came from one or another Vulgate ms that had the passage!

This is the funniest of all. There are hardly 12 Old Latin mss extant for any given portion of the Gospels, much less for 1 John! Obviously he means Vulgate mss, but the misnomer is unforgivable academically. Actually, most early Vulgate mss also omit the passage.

To my knowledge there is no Syriac ms of any kind (Peshitta, Philoxenian, Harklean) that has the passage. It is true that often the Old Latin and Old Syriac agree in the Gospels, but not only are there no Old Syriac mss for 1 John, no Syriac Fathers ever quote the passage, probably because it was never found in any of their copies.

And certainly these scattered examples are totally free from dependence on the predominating influence of the Vulgate, right? NOT!

And the Bible was written in Latin, right?

What of the Fathers who quote the passage without the heavenly witnesses, such as Clement, Origen, Cyril, John of Damascus, Ambrose, Augustine, etc.? Certainly the Father, Word, and Holy Spirit would have sounded better than the Spirit, Water, and Blood for their exegesis were the former in their copies to begin with.

It's only an argument of silence if they don't quote the passage at all. Those who quote the passage without the illustrious passage are concrete witnesses against the passage. It proves the precise and theologically significant passage was not in their copies. Had it been, they wouldn't have focussed on the less significant "spirit, water, and blood" instead of the much more precise and significant "Father, Word, and Holy Spirit."

No, just 99 percent of the mss of 1 John in the language in which it was written do not contain the passage.

.

This is actually intelligible, and theoretically, based on popular modern text-critical assumptions, a reading found in only a few mss might be original, and thus his pleading here actually makes sense.

Jonathan C. Borland

 

This is pretty close to the truth. Only 8 (not 6) greek manuscripts have the comma. 4 of the 8 have it in the margins.

The other thing to note is that 100% of the 8 pieces of "Favorable Evidence" for the comma is post 9th century when it comes to greek manuscripts.

This also highlights the problem with the "Majority Text" which just looks at a majority of greek texts, which is significantly skewed to post 9th century texts.

Key to abbreviations

 

You guys are focusing on and attacking his numbers only, what about the many other arguments he presents? For example;

 

Give me one example of the KJ translators leaving a text out and then placing it in the footnotes. They put alternate renderings of words in the margin, which I've always said is very useful and I own a bible which has these alternate renderings in the center column.

Again, though, I despise when you are discussing a modern english translation and someone brings up the KJ. I said nothing about the KJ, but rather a practice that some modern translations use. The next I know someone is saying something about the KJ, something not true by the way. Can I not discuss a modern translation practice and leave the KJ out?

 

Did it in another thread as I felt it is a different discussion.
http://baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=67904

 

Actually, you didn't.

 

Actually I did. Go back and re-read it

 

I did. I'm still waiting for an example.

 

Look at the beginning of the verse 7 in the KJV, that's the part that is in the verse 7 of the NIV. BOTH start with the same statement. And the NIV's statement is most like the KJV's verse 7.

KJV verse 7 "For there are three that bear record"
NIV verse 7 "For there are three that testify"

 

One of these things is not like the other:

NIV footnote
1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century)

TNIV footnote
1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century)

 

Either they have different info, or more manuscripts with it included were found that moved the date back. Not sure. Don't even use the NIV so don't really care.

 

Talk about willfull denial. NIV verse 7 is the beginning of KJV verse 8.

 

Actually not. Verse 8(in the KJV) begins with "and" and verse 7(which the NIV has) begins with "for."


TR
verse 7 οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες
verse 8 και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες

CT
Verse 7 οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες

So, which one is it more like? Verse 7 or 8?

KJV verse 7 "For there are three that bear record"
KJV verse 8 "And there are three that bear witness"

NIV verse 7 "For there are three that testify"

Note, "record" "witness" and "testify" all are the same Greek word μαρτυρουντες

 

Late To The Party Am I

Well, the poll is closed. However, I've done a lot of work through the years on this particular passage, and I have no doubt that the passage is a Latin corruption that eventually wound up in later Greek manuscripts.

In fact, it is SINGULARLY Latin. The lack of any Greek manuscript testimony from the first ten-plus centuries, the lack of any testimony other than Latin, it is about as solid proof as possible that John did not write it.

Now....that is not to say that what it declares is not true, but it is not authentic. It is a distinctively Latin corruption that can easily be traced.

 

This Statement Aroused My Curiosity...

I'm curious - how do you think any individual Christian could have somehow "removed" this passage from the text?

That statement really confuses me.

 

Hello

D.A. Carson debunked this in 1979 in "The KJV Debate: A Plea for Realism," noting among other things that Gill was flat out wrong about the facts in the manuscripts (it did not belong in 9 of 16 copies