The Johannine Comma: Inspiration? Or Interpolation?

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Esaias

In opposition to the allegation, I submit (perhaps again) the following pertinent facts:

1. All authorities agree that the text is quoted by Cyprian in the mid 3rd century.
2. All authorities agree that Jerome not only cites the text but complains that some copyists are intentionally omitting the verse from their copies.
3. All authorities agree that Tertullian in the 2nd century refers to the verse in question.

These three points alone, which as far as I have seen are not disputed by anyone, seem to me to be conclusive as to the antiquity of the verse.

While all three textual statements are in fact true, they are disputed in various ways by heavenly witnesses contras.

Originally Posted by Esaias

Was there not a claim made that without the Comma the grammar of the text is damaged?

This is in fact an extremely powerful evidence of authenticity. Here is an earlier reference, the world-class Greek scholar Eugenius Bulgaris wrote on this in 1780 and his analysis stands strong today.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

the heavenly witnesses verse left its trace in the solecism of the Greek text without the verse.

Steven Avery

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Speaking of the citations of the early church fathers John Gill continues: "And yet, after all, certain it is, that it is cited by many of them; by Fulgentius, in the beginning of the "sixth" century, against the Arians, without any scruple or hesitation; and Jerome, as before observed, has it in his translation made in the latter end of the "fourth" century; AND IT IS CITED BY ATHANASIUS ABOUT THE YEAR 350; AND BEFORE HIM BY CYPRIAN, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE THIRD CENTURY, ABOUT THE YEAR 250; AND IT IS REFERRED TO BY TERTULLIAN ABOUT THE YEAR 200; AND WHICH WAS WITHIN A HUNDRED YEARS, OR LITTLE MORE, OF THE WRITING OF THE EPISTLE, WHICH MAY BE ENOUGH TO SATISFY ANYONE OF THE GENUINENESS OF THIS PASSAGE; and besides, there never was any dispute about it till Erasmus left it out in the first edition of his translation of the New Testament; and yet he himself, upon the credit of the old British copy before mentioned, put it into another edition of his translation." - from the page I linked to earlier.

I have not read the whole thread but I would like to see the evidence that Tertullian quotes the passage. I remember some of the others.

I read a good piece years ago by a Trin who said the verse was taken out over time because it seemed to teach Oneness.

BTW it was this verse that got me thinking about Oneness.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

I have not read the whole thread but I would like to see the evidence that Tertullian quotes the passage. I remember some of the others.

I read a good piece years ago by a Trin who said the verse was taken out over time because it seemed to teach Oneness.

BTW it was this verse that got me thinking about Oneness.

For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: “Go,” He saith, “teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” The comparison with this law of that definition, “Unless a man have been reborn of water and Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of the heavens,” has tied faith to the necessity of baptism. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.vi.iii.xiii.html

EDIT: Sorry, thought I was on the other thread. Hold on a minute...

[Esaias]

begin quote:

In his apologetic work Against Praxeas, He makes the statement concerning the Trinity,


"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are one essence, not one Person, as it is said, 'I and my Father are One,' in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number."62
While Tertullian here quotes John 10:30 so as to elucidate the point he makes about the unity of essence, and not of number, among the Persons of the Godhead, his language concerning all three Persons is strikingly particular to that found in I John 5:7. He quotes "these three are", and then clarifies that the "one" is a one of substance and essence, not person. Quite clearly, this is a reference to the Comma. What is important to keep in mind, also, is that Against Praxeas is a work specifically designed to explain and defend the doctrine of the Trinity against Sabellianism, which is why Tertullian takes pains to note the unity is one of essence and not of person. Thus, it's use nearly a century and a half before the Trinitarian controversies (during which the supposed silence of the patristics on the verse is said to suggest that they did not know of the verse) to defend the doctrine of the Trinity is remarkable in itself, as it shows that the verse DID find witness and was employed on this very subject. end quote

http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleve.../1john5n7.html

(I would point out that Tertullian did NOT say "one essence, not one person". He actually said unum, not unus. Its subtle and the difference lies in the variations of the Latin word for " one". Essence and Person are added by translators of Tertullian's works.)

[Praxeas]

NET

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 Textus Receptus (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.

[Praxeas]

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 Textus Receptus (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 Textus Receptus (TR)/Byzantine MSS lack them. Further, these advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: Since this verse is in the Textus Receptus (TR), it must be original. (Of course, this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the Textus Receptus (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 Textus Receptus (TR); the wording of the Textus Receptus (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.

[Scott Pitta]

Nice summary, Praxeas

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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 Textus Receptus (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 Textus Receptus (TR)/Byzantine MSS lack them. Further, these advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: Since this verse is in the Textus Receptus (TR), it must be original. (Of course, this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the Textus Receptus (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 Textus Receptus (TR); the wording of the Textus Receptus (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.

Great research, I have spoken against the validity of this text for many years.

[Steven Avery]

Let us take one small part of the disinformation.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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.

Then how was the verse utilized by Cyprian in the 3rd century?

How did the heavenly witnesses get into the Old Latin (not Vulgate) Bibles of hundreds of bishops from a wide Meditteranean region in the Confession of Faith used in the Council of Carthage of 484 AD, contra the Arians under Hunneric? The verse was given a special emphasis in the reference.

Under your scenario there is no vector to account for the actual history.

Why did Jerome's Vulgate Prologue mention that there was a tendency to drop the verse?

Using the NETBible notes is a sure-fire way to have shoddy scholarship.

Steven Avery

[Michael The Disciple]

Part of the problem is the rigidness of first proclaiming the scriptures had to first be written in Greek. Something that can never be proved.