Originally Posted by mizpeh (Post 189983)

Read Eliseus' posts slowly. He makes alot of sense but doesn't give references.

What words don't you understand? I had to look up interpolation. It just means an addition to the text that wasn't there to begin with.

Try looking for a good site that explains how the Bible was put together especially the NT since they are talking about the 1 John.

Originally Posted by mizpeh (Post 189983)

Read Eliseus' posts slowly. He makes alot of sense but doesn't give references.

What words don't you understand? I had to look up interpolation. It just means an addition to the text that wasn't there to begin with.

Try looking for a good site that explains how the Bible was put together especially the NT since they are talking about the 1 John.

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea (Post 190193)

Eliseus is getting his tail handed to him ... I think it's time we move to Mark 16:16

Originally Posted by Praxeas (Post 188247)

Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence. This longer reading is found only in nine late mss, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these mss (221 2318 [18th century] {2473 [dated 1634]} and [with minor variations] 61 88 429 629 636 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest ms, codex 221 (10th century) includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition.

The oldest ms with the Comma in its text is from the 14th century (629), but the wording here departs from all the other mss in several places. The next oldest mss on behalf of the Comma, 88 (12th century) 429 (14th) 636 (15th), also have the reading only as a marginal note (v.l.). The remaining mss are from the 16th to 18th centuries. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek ms until the 14th century (629), and that ms deviates from all others in its wording; the wording that matches what is found in the TR was apparently composed after Erasmus' Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the Comma appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either ms, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until a.d. 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin).

This is all the more significant since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. The reading seems to have arisen in a 4th century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus' Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church.

After his first edition appeared, there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek mss that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written in ca. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this ms sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text, as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever mss he could for the production of his text.

In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: He did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold. Modern advocates of the TR and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings--even in places where the TR/Byzantine mss lack them. Further, these advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: Since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. (Of course, this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text.)

In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum goes back to the original text yet does not appear until the 14th century in any Greek mss (and that form is significantly different from what is printed in the TR; the wording of the TR is not found in any Greek mss until the 16th century)? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: Faith must be rooted in history. Significantly, the German translation of Luther was based on Erasmus' second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma.

But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza's 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus' third and later editions (and Stephanus' editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others.

NET bible commentary

Originally Posted by Eliseus (Post 189498)

Is it true or false that without the Comma the Greek becomes garbled in its grammar?

Is it true or false that the Old Latin manuscripts contain the Comma?

Is it true or false that Cyprian quoted the Comma in about 250 AD?

Is it true or false that the Council of Carthage quoted the Comma as evidence against the Arians around 450 AD?

Originally Posted by Eliseus (Post 189498)

2. There are only a few Greek manuscripts which even contain the whole chapter, let alone the Comma. And of those which contain the chapter, the majority contain the Comma. And of those which do not contain the Comma, the majority are 'late' (according to the UBS standards).

Originally Posted by Steven Avery (Post 1333689)

484 AD, hundreds of bishops emphasized the verse, specifically as scripture from John.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery (Post 1333689)

484 AD, hundreds of bishops emphasized the verse, specifically as scripture from John.

And I would add that the Vulgate Prologue, a first-person writing by Jerome, as one of the special major evidences. As the Prologue specifically referenced the tendency for the heavenly witnesses to be dropped from the text.

(Flimsy historical accusations that the Prologue is not authentically Jerome, that it was a late forgery by another writer, were essentially refuted by the discovery of the Prologue in the Codex Fuldensis of 546 AD.)

This first part is incorrect. The number of Greek mss without the verse is over 500 and the heavenly witnesses had dropped from the Greek ms line. It is true that most all are late.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

Originally Posted by Steven Avery (Post 1333689)

484 AD, hundreds of bishops emphasized the verse, specifically as scripture from John.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery