So far, as an intersted party sitting in the cheep seats (and reading this stuff).... with no iron in the fire and willing to listen to the arguments in as unbiased a manner as possible.
I find Chan's case credible. Thus far I have not seen anything from Eliseus.
I haven't posted any evidence because Chan has simply quoted the NIV publishers and a couple links.
In any event, later today I will just present the evidence that I believe shows the Johannine Comma is inspired and part of the Biblical text.
Eliseus, how about presenting your view instead of challenging Chan's methodology. I for one am very intersted in this discussion.
I also find it quite fascenating that Chan a studied Trinitarian, opposes the "JComma" while Eliseus a studied Oneness Penticostal supports the "JComma".
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Eliseus, how about presenting your view instead of challenging Chan's methodology. I for one am very intersted in this discussion.
I also find it quite fascenating that Chan a studied Trinitarian, opposes the "JComma" while Eliseus a studied Oneness Penticostal supports the "JComma".
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
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
The Johannine Comma - Why we should be extremely careful
First off, the arguments which suggest that the Johannine Comma is an interpolation are insufficient to warrant removing the passage from the Scripture. The words of God are extremely important, and therefore it is with extreme caution that we should even contemplate striking words from the text. I do not imagine God would take kindly to us willy-nilly altering God's Word.
Also, we must be extremely wary of succumbing to the temptation of cultism, which whispers in our ear that if a particular passageof Scripture does not suit our doctrine, we should simply cry 'interpolation!' and get rid of it. In fact, if we as a movement begin to promote the idea that the Johannine Comma is an interpolation and ought to be removed, we will find ourselves severely rebuked by trinitarians for this very thing. They will accuse us of simply altering the words of God to better fit our doctrine, of removing offending passages that contradict our doctrine, and so forth. Therefore, we had better be able to show beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever that the passage in question is without any question an interpolation, and not worthy of inclusion in the canon of Scripture.
Furthermore, imagine the surprise elicited from someone you are witnessing to, when you tell them 'Well, I know this verse sounds like it reads thus, but in reality this verse doesn't even belong in the Bible...' What seeds of doubt have you just planted in their minds concerning the integrity of the Word of God? What else may need to be excised? And if they agree that various portions of Scripture ought to be excised, where will it end? What cult may they fall victim to, having already agreed to the premise that all those 'difficult' verses may be freely expunged from the record?
I would suggest then the subject is no easy come, easy go subject. Anyone who would lightly undertake to correct the Bible or say 'this verse, long accepted by Christians everywhere, ought to be withdrawn and forgotten' is foolhardy at best. This does not mean we should not 'prove all things, hold fast that which is good' but it does mean we better have our ducks lined up perfectly lest we be found guilty of adding to and taking away from God's words.
The opposition claims that the Johannine Comma is an interpolation, an intruder of men's words into the canon of Holy Writ, because (they say) it's 'a few late manuscripts' that add the passage in question (see NIV footnote on the verse in question, as supplied by Chan).
This is inconsistent, however. The wording of the footnote leads a person to believe that well, it's only a FEW manuscripts that have this reading, therefore obviously the MAJORITY, the REST of the VAST NUMBER of manuscripts do not, and therefore obviously it shoudl be removed from anyone's Bible.
The problem is, the Bible correctors' translations, such as the NASB and the NIV, often RELY upon the manuscript evidence of only a FEW or even ONE manuscript to support the readings they prefer!
In other words, those who argue that since 'only a few' Greek manuscripts have the reading therefore the passage is suspect accept numerous readings having even LESS manuscript support, as a matter of routine.
For example, the NIV at Matthew 11:19 reads 'But wisdom is proved right by her actions' and the NASB reads 'Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds.' These of course are following the so called Critical text. Yet, the phrase is supported by only three Greek manuscripts, against the overwhelming vast majority of all others!
Therefore, to suggest that 'a few' manuscripts does not the Word of God make is inconsistent when the very same people routinely prefer 'a few manuscripts' as that which should be in your Bible.
There are certainly cases where a minority reading should be adopted. All scholars recognise this. The problem though, is that in the case of the Johannine Comma, the Bible correctors are often hypocritical in attempting to downplay its inspiration by resorting to 'well, it's only a few that read this way...'
Linear Mode
