Historical References Regarding 1st Cent. Baptism

[Esaias]

Johannine comma -

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...?t=6054&page=5

I will quote myself -

Oldest is not always better
Another charge often levied against this passage of scripture is that the manuscripts which do contain it are old, late, not early. That the earliest manuscripts do not, and therefore the passage should be jettisoned.

This of course presupposes that an early manuscript is superior to a later manuscript, by reason of the date. Is this argument meritorious?

Consider the following facts:

Whereas all but about 20 of the available Greek manuscripts contain the Comma (which in itself would destroy any 'only a few have them' arguments anyway), and the vast majority of these manuscripts are considered 'late' (post 9th century AD), the vast majority of the 20 odd manuscripts which omit the Comma are also late (post 9th century, some 95 percent of them, in fact). And this is according to the 'standard' set by the UBS themselves! (The UBS is the promoter of the Critical Text underlying the newer versions.)

The oldest Greek manuscript which contains the Comma (Dubbed Wizanburgensis) is older than all but 5 of the manuscripts which omit the Comma, and is contemporary with a 6th.

The bulk of the manuscripts for both sides of the issue are 'late', and both sides have 'early' manuscripts which attest to their respective readings.

But is older always better in regard to Biblical manuscripts? Not necessarily.

The Critical text relies primarily on two old texts (not necessarily manuscripts, by the way), the Vaticanus, and the Sinaiticus. These texts however routinely contradict each other in thousands of places, and the NIV or NASB or other critical text-based versions do not always make the decision of which reading to go with based upon age alone. I wonder why? In any event, these texts date from around the 4th century.

The problem is however that prior to that period, the New Testament text would have been extremely difficult to alter (such as by inserting the Johannine Comma). Many scholars are convinced that all variant readings were established by around the year 200 (Scrivener, Colwell, for example).

Consider the case of Origen for example. Origen in his day was one of the most influential teachers in Christendom. Yet his 'critical examinations' of Matthew 19:19 found their way into only one obscure manuscript of a local church. Why? Because by his time, the New Testament text had been dispersed too far and too widely to allow for such fiddling with the Scripture to be accepted very widely without leaving a clear witness to objections to the changes.

Furthermore, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus texts (usually referred to in the margins of newer Bible versions as 'the oldest and best manuscripts') are vellum texts. Vellum was used by Christians (especially catholics) as 'official copies' of the Scripture for liturgical usage. Unfortunately, vellum is not very durable, and wears out quickly from use.

Quick question then: If Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were designed for common liturgical use, then why do they still exist?

Obviously, the reason we even have them in existence is precisely because they were not used. I wonder why they weren't used?

It could be that, since they differ so much from the majority of the texts and manuscripts, and from each other as well (just as much, in fact), therefore nobody used them because they were obviously corrupt versions of the known text of Scripture.

Papyrus (the other primary material upon which the Scriptures were recorded) is even less durable than vellum. Usage means wear and tear, and thus replacement. Therefore, ancient manuscripts or texts on vellum or papyrus, which are in good condition after 1500 or so years, are themselves the vest evidence they were not used... and why were they not used? Because they were obviously flawed, and known to be flawed.

When you have readings that come from a MAJORITY of extant manuscripts, and those manuscripts are 'late', that in itself is proof of their usage and copying. (The originals wear out and are replaced due to use.) And when you have the opposite conditions (very old manuscripts with minority readings) you may draw the opposite conclusion - they were NOT used and copied.

Which basically implies that either the oldest pristine manuscripts and texts giving strange and minority readings are the Word of God, hidden from everyone until say the late 19th century, or else they are simply corrupted versions of the New Testament text which were not used and copied precisely because they were known to be full of errors.

Furthermore, Dean Burgon's study of the patristic writers' quotations of the New Testament showed that the patristic writers quoted the Majority (often called the 'Byzantine') family of texts and manuscripts compared to the aberrant or 'Alexandrian' (ie similar to the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus texts) by a ratio of 3 to 2. That is, they largely preferred to quote the 'later' majority manuscripts (even though these writers lived from the 2nd to the 9th centiuries!) rather than any manuscript or text reflecting the 'Alexandrian' or Vaticanus/Sinaiticus type of manuscript or text.

Zuntz (a textual critic and scholar) in his The Text of the Epistles (p 55) identified the fact that many manuscripts which are classed as 'Alexandrian' contain 'Byzantine' (majority) readings, and concludes that the Byzantine readings are ancient ( a similar situation prevails in Homeric textual criticism, by the way...)

In any event, simply pointing to a manuscript or textual reading as superior 'because it is older' is without merit. While age certianly are to be taken into account, age is by no means the sole, or even the most important, consideration in textual criticism.

[Esaias]

Again, quoting myself -

Originally Posted by Eliseus

One thing that is strange, is that if the Johannine Comma was simply invented in the 'late period' of manuscript development (as the NIV footnote tries to argue), then why was it routinely quoted for centuries before that?

Tertullian in his famous Against Praxeas alludes to the Johannine Comma, and Cyprian explicitly quotes it in his 'Of the Ecclesiastical Unity' chapter 6. Both of these men lived in the 3rd century, prior to the time of the 'heretic' Priscillian who is often accused of being the inventor of the Comma. Likewise Athanasius quoted the Comma (again prior to Priscillian).

There are other witnesses to the antiquity of the Comma, besides mere quotations from patristic writers.

There is the Old Latin manuscript tradition. Dating from about the middle 2nd century, the Old Latin manuscripts contained the Comma. These Old Latin manuscripts were translated from the Greek, thus giving clear evidence that the Greek manuscripts at that time did in fact have the Comma.

Later, Jerome (when commissioned to develop the Latin Vulgate) complained that there were attempts being made in his day to alter and change the Greek Bibles, and even mentioned the Johannine Comma as being one of the corrupters targets. Like I said, by the 3rd century, attempts to alter the text of Scripture were noticed and challenged. (Some silly people try to argue that the Comma was unknown to Jerome, and not included in the Vulgate. However, the Council of Carthage, relying upon Jerome's Vulgate, explicitly cites the Johannine Comma in one of its canons.)

In fact, the Waldensian Bibles used by the Waldensians, who were completely outside of the Catholic Vulgate text tradition (they having been enemies of the Roman Catholic church since 'time immemorial' according to both themselves and the Inquisitors who persecuted them) had the Comma in their Bibles, being as they were translated from the Old Latin manuscripts and texts.

The Comma was known in the Syriac manuscript tradition as well, having been referred to by Jason of Edessa sometime around 700 AD. Thus, the Comma was present in yet another text or manuscript tradition.

The point being, there is a plethora of evidence that the Johannine Comma was known and in existence from the earliest times, which exposes the claims of its detractors as either uninformed or disengenuous.

[Esaias]

Once again -

Originally Posted by Eliseus

Once upon a time, Erasmus was compiling the manuscripts of the New Testament into a text. He left out the Johannine Comma because no Greek text or manuscript could be found with it. He was challenged on this, and said, 'Show me just one Greek manuscript with it, and I will include it.' And so, made to order, a Greek manuscript was 'discovered' which conveniently contained the passage in question, and so he included in his revised text. And the rest is history.

Or is it?

First of all, there is no evidence of any such 'promise' on Erasmus' part. The top Erastian scholar, H. J. de Jonge, Dean of Theology at Leiden university, has pointed out that there is simply no evidence whatsoever of any such 'promise'.

In fact, one of the guys who popularised the 'Erastian Promise', Brian Metzger (one of the more famous proponents of the Critical Text) actually issued a retraction of his previous use of the Erastian Promise myth! (see his The Text of the New Testament p 291)

And so much for Erasmus.

[Esaias]

and finally -

Originally Posted by Eliseus

And now we come to the Johannine Comma itself.

If the critics are right, and we remove the Comma, the resulting revised Greek text becomes a garbled bit of Greek non-grammar!

To put it simply, if we remove the offending parts, we have 'spirit, water, and blood' in verse 8. These are in Greek neuter nouns. They are followed by a Greek participle hoi marturountes, which is masculine. This is extremely bad grammar. It is in fact a Greek grammatical impossibility, to have three masculine witnesses agreeing as one neuter witness.

Replace the Johannine Comma where it ought to be, and the grammatical difficulty is completely resolved.

If removing a passage of Scripture renders the resulting text a garbled mass of grammatical confusion, it shoudl be obvious a mistake has been made, and the words should be put back in.

Also, it is contended that the verse was created by trinitarians to support their doctrine. Yet it does not in fact do so.

The eastern Orthodox churches routinely FAILED to use this passage, possibly even expunging it from many of the manuscripts they had, precisely because they feared it lent credence to the hated doctrine of Sabellius.

The trinitarian formula is 'Father, Son, and Holy Spirit' not 'Father, WORD, and Holy Spirit'.

Although some trinitarians did attempt to use it (as Tertullian for example) they had to cautiously explicate it in a trinitarian fashion specifically to avoid charges of Sabellianism!

The supposed creation of this text to buttress a trinitarian doctrine falls apart when considered against whom it would be used. Sabellians? Monarchians? Oneness people?

What about the Arians? Interestingly, the Arian controversy was strongest in the East, and there the Trinitarians did not really use this verse to argue against the Arians.

[Esaias]

Oops, one more from the same thread -

Originally Posted by Eliseus

So then, we see the following:

1. The contested verse has plenty of ancient witness to its authenticity and antiquity.

2. The arguments put forward against it are fraught with inconsistencies and downright falsehoods.

3. The grammar falls apart without it and makes no sense.

4. The reason for its alleged interpolation does not match the historical facts.

5. Nobody has actually proven who dunnit, where, or when, or even why.

In short, there is really no reason whatsoever to accept the accusation that the contested words are not God's words, except a bigoted prejudice against what some perceive as a 'trinitarian proof text' (although they perceive falsely) and a bigoted and uninformed prejudice against any text or manuscript which does not conform to the 'critical text' (as corrupted and inconsistent as it is).

In point of fact, I would submit that all other things being equal, if the verse was NOT in the KING JAMES BIBLE, but was in the NIV, NASB, and all the others, the people arguing against it would be SILENT and committed to its veracity and authenticity.

I believe that people oppose this verse because they are opposed to the King James Bible itself. There is something about that Bible they do not like. Perhaps they themselves do not even know what it is.

Do not accuse me of being a 'King James Only' type. I am not. But there is something about the King James Bible that modernists, liberals, humanists, and other assorted spiritually troubled persons simply cannot stand.

There is a power in God's Word. It draws the ire of all modern society's self appointed 'experts'.

And so I conclude with why I believe the Johannine Comma is inspired, and not to be removed from the Bible.

'There are three that bear record in heaven - the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost... and these three are ONE.'

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Servetus taught Oneness better than many modern oneness theologians. Have you read his writings? Or just what the Arians and socinians claim?

Here, check this out - http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...light=servetus

I've only read enough about Servetus to know that he wasn't preaching the three-stepper oneness pentecostal messaage of salvation. No doubt he was an anti-trinitarian and shared many of the views of God which oneness pentecostals began to promote at the sudden appearance of the sect in 1913, but Servetus was far far from being an 'apostolic' oneness pentecostal. I doubt oneness pentecostals would agree with His view that "Jesus Christ is the Son of God because he has the elements of the substance of the Father, to wit: fire, air and water" (The Complaint of Nicholas de la Fontaine
Against Servetus, 14 August, 1553a)

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by seekerman

I've only read enough about Servetus ...

See? That's the problem. You 'only read enough ABOUT Servetus'.

Why not read what he actually wrote and then get back to us?

[Praxeas]

The origin of the interpolation is obscure. Traces of a mystical interpretation of the phrase about the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood, applying it to the Trinity, are to be found in *Cyprian and *Augustine; but the earliest evidence for the insertion of a gloss in the text of the Epistle comes from a MS of *Priscillianist provenance discovered by G. Schepss at Würzburg in 1885. Later the insertion is found in quotations in African authors. It would thus seem to have originated in N. Africa or Spain and to have found its way into the Latin Bibles used in those districts (both *Old Latin and *Vulgate), possibly under the stress of *Arian persecution.

Cross, F. L., & Livingstone, E. A. (2005). The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd ed. rev.) (885). Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

[Praxeas]

The only Greek manuscripts in any form which support the words, “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one; and there are three that bear witness in earth,” are the Montfortianus of Dublin, copied evidently from the modern Latin Vulgate; the Ravianus, copied from the Complutensian Polyglot; a manuscript at Naples, with the words added in the Margin by a recent hand; Ottobonianus, 298, of the fifteenth century, the Greek of which is a mere translation of the accompanying Latin. All the old versions omit the words. The oldest manuscripts of the Vulgate omit them: the earliest Vulgate manuscript which has them being Wizanburgensis, 99, of the eighth century. A scholium quoted in Matthaei, shows that the words did not arise from fraud; for in the words, in all Greek manuscripts “there are three that bear record,” as the Scholiast notices, the word “three” is masculine, because the three things (the Spirit, the water, and the blood) are SYMBOLS OF THE TRINITY. To this CYPRIAN, 196, also refers, “Of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, it is written, ‘And these three are one’ (a unity).” There must be some mystical truth implied in using “three” (Greek) in the masculine, though the antecedents, “Spirit, water, and blood,” are neuter. That THE TRINITY was the truth meant is a natural inference: the triad specified pointing to a still Higher Trinity; as is plain also from 1Jn 5:9, “the witness of GOD,” referring to the Trinity alluded to in the Spirit, water, and blood. It was therefore first written as a marginal comment to complete the sense of the text, and then, as early at least as the eighth century, was introduced into the text of the Latin Vulgate. The testimony, however, could only be borne on earth to men, not in heaven. The marginal comment, therefore, that inserted “in heaven,” was inappropriate. It is on earth that the context evidently requires the witness of the three, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, to be borne: mystically setting forth the divine triune witnesses, the Father, the Spirit, and the Son. LUECKE notices as internal evidence against the words, John never uses “the Father” and “the Word” as correlates, but, like other New Testament writers, associates “the Son” with “the Father,” and always refers “the Word” to “God” as its correlate, not “the Father.” Vigilius, at the end of the fifth century, is the first who quotes the disputed words as in the text; but no Greek manuscript earlier than the fifteenth is extant with them. The term “Trinity” occurs first in the third century in TERTULLIAN [Against Praxeas, 3].

Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., & Brown, D. (1997). Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1 Jn 5:7). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

[Praxeas]

After μαρτυροῦντες the Textus Receptus adds the following: ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἔν εἰσι. (8) καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ. That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain in the light of the following considerations.
(A) EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. (1) The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript. The eight manuscripts are as follows:

61:
codex Montfortianus, dating from the early sixteenth century.
88v.r.:
a variant reading in a sixteenth century hand, added to the fourteenth-century codex Regius of Naples.
221v.r.:
a variant reading added to a tenth-century manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
429v.r.:
a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Wolfenbüttel.
636v.r.:
a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Naples.
918:
a sixteenth-century manuscript at the Escorial, Spain.
2318:
an eighteenth-century manuscript, influenced by the Clementine Vulgate, at Bucharest, Rumania.

(2) The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.
(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied A.D. 541–46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before A.D. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).
The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text. In the fifth century the gloss was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy as part of the text of the Epistle, and from the sixth century onwards it is found more and more frequently in manuscripts of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate. In these various witnesses the wording of the passage differs in several particulars. (For examples of other intrusions into the Latin text of 1 John, see 2.17; 4.3; 5.6, and 20.)

(B) INTERNAL PROBABILITIES. (1) As regards transcriptional probability, if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.
(2) As regards intrinsic probability, the passage makes an awkward break in the sense.
For the story of how the spurious words came to be included in the Textus Receptus, see any critical commentary on 1 John, or Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, pp. 101 f.; cf. also Ezra Abbot, “I. John v. 7 and Luther’s German Bible,” in The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays (Boston, 1888), pp. 458–463.


Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (647–649). London; New York: United Bible Societies.