The Peshitta

Yes, I know and that is why I like to "defend" this little verse that everyone beats up on.

I've said before my view is "thin ice", but it's what I believe.

My explanation: Early on in the copying of the original 1 John mss (assuming the Comma was there) it dropped out because while in the going back and forth from the original to the copy the scribe had a case of cross-eyes because of the of the similarity between the two parts of the comma.

Whatever the case it has however remained in the Traditional Text all these years.

Also, even Archangel admits to undisputed ante-Nicean (howbeit Latin) witnesses to the Johannine Comma.

Also do a Google (or good engine) search on "johannine comma" and you will find many hours of both pro and con reading.

HankD

[ September 12, 2003, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

The Cyprian quote is unclear in that it could be from either 1 Jn. 5:7 or 1 Jn. 5:8, and we have no way of knowing which. That leads to the question, "Are there any *other* witnesses to the form of this text in Cyprian's time and locale (3rd C. Latin-speaking North Africa) which shed some light on the form Cyprian was likely to have used?" The answer is "Yes -- the verse is quoted in its entirety in 'De Rebaptismate 15,' and it does *not* have the Comma." So the witness is extremely relevant and valuable.

 

The evidence suggests this is so highly improbable it borders on the impossible. If the Johannine Comma is original, omission by homoioteleuton (when the scribe's eye skips from one word to another with a similar ending and drops out the material in between) in a *single* MS would not account for its absence from the text of *every* extant Greek copy of 1 John from the first 1400 years of the Church's existence. The Comma's presence in a handful *late* Greek MSS is much more easily explained as an importation from the Spanish/North African Latin versions where the addition originated.

The plain fact is that the evidence against the Comma's originality is overwhelming: its total absence from the text of *all* pre-14th C. Greek MSS; from *all* early versions save the Old Latin and Vulgate (and even then not in the earliest forms of these versions); from *all* Greek Fathers writing during the Christological and Trinitarian controversies of the 3rd and 4th centuries; and even from Latin Fathers like Hilary of Poitiers (315-367 AD), who wrote theological discourses on the Trinity without citing the Comma once, and Ambrose (333-397 AD), who quoted 1 Jn. 5:7-8 four times without the Comma.

It is not found in the "traditional text" used by the Greek Church (the Byzantine text), the Syriac Church (the Peshitta), or the Coptic church. It is only found in the "traditional text" of the Latin Church in the West (the later Old Latin and later Vulgate).

You are mistaken. I stated that the earliest known witness to the Comma was Priscillan (c. 340-385 A.D.), and he is definitely post-Nicene (i.e., after 325 A.D).

 

Oops, my mistake, this is one place where you are right and I am wrong.

However,

It is not impossible, if the Comma was original and on the day(s) the FIRST TRANSLATION into old Itala were made from the original (before the first copy to Greek), the translating scribe included verse seven of the Comma, the translation would be correct.

Then, after the translation were done and the FIRST Greek COPY were made from the original without the Comma and then the original was destroyed then the copy would be incorrect and the present situatuon would be realized.

Like I said, "thin ice", but within the realm of possibility.

HankD

[ September 13, 2003, 08:45 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Because 1 John 5:7 is a Trinity proof text?

HankD

 

True. Unlike the Comma, Jude 25 has early MS support in both Greek (P74, Aleph A B C) and Latin (ar, t, Vulgate). Ditto for Acts 4:25, which also has early MS support in both Greek (P74, Aleph A B E) and Latin (ar c dem e).

An excellent question. I'd like to hear a Comma supporter respond to it.

 

No question that it's a Trinity proof text. If it *were* originally part of 1 John, it would make things so much easier for orthodox theologians. But that's not a reason for admitting it into the text. If so, why not simply include *every* variant in the MSS tradition that makes the text "more orthodox?"

 

Please note my question mark after my response “Because 1 John 5:7 is a Trinity proof text?”.
I am sorry about my sarcasm, my wife has told me that I need to signal people when I am being sarcastic/ironic… Sorry, you didn't see the look of irony on my face when I typed my response.

But, BTW, it is also true (as I have previously said or indicated) that textual criticism is a subjective art/science and I am admittedly prejudicial towards the TR (Scrivener) and against Aleph/B.

I follow after the John Burgon school of thought in general disagreement with W&H.

I’ve also indicated this with different words: If it were up to me I just might include the longer readings that were previously missing from the TR (Scrivener) depending upon newly discovered data.

Personally I believe Burgon's proposition that far too much weight has been attributed to Aleph/B by the followers of the W&H theory (Oldest, shortest, etc). The papyri (especially p66) have indicated in many places that longer readings may not be the result of conflation.

Finally, each variant has it's own story.
The Comma is ancient (Latin) and unique in many ways. Far more ink (pixels) has been devoted to this little verse than most other "variants".

HankD

 

It is the theological agrument, the grammatical agrument and the manuscript agrument. That is what Dr. Strouse refuted Dr. Carson.

David Cloud's book, "Things Hard to be Understood," has 3 pages commments on the Trinity reflecting 1 John 5:7-8.