The Johannine Comma: Inspiration? Or Interpolation?

[Brett Prince]

Interpolation. Prax and Chan are putting out the real stuff. Eli is spouting KJV-only type rhetoric, which is not real scholarship, but fluff.

Originally Posted by Brett Prince

Interpolation. Prax and Chan are putting out the real stuff. Eli is spouting KJV-only type rhetoric, which is not real scholarship, but fluff.

First of all, to be perfectly honest, your remark hurts. 'Spouting KJV-only type rhetoric, which is not scholarship, but fluff.' But I guess I'll get over it, along with any respect I used to have for you. Call me wimpy, but when a guy I hold in high regard burns me with a flame like this, it does tend to put a damper on things.

Secondly, would you care to identify any falsehoods I have presented as fact?

Thirdly, I specifically stated I am not KJV-only. Apparently you did not read my posts, you simply discovered I was supportive of 1 John 5:7 and assumed the worst. Very kind of you.

Fourthly, Chan has put forward nothing but some hyperlinks and two quotes from the NIV publishers. I have addressed all the major 'arguments' used to challenge the veracity and authenticity of the verse in question.

Fifthly, Praxeas has claimed that there are only two Greek manuscripts which the verse, which is an outright FALSEHOOD (undoubtedly due to him relying on old information, really old and outdated information... I cannot think of any other charitable reason why he repeated it...) There are at least 8 Greek manuscripts, (possibly more, I forget right off hand), as well as numerous Old Latin manuscripts (many of which predate the Greek manuscripts) as well as Patristic quotations going back to 250 AD which FALSIFIES THE CLAIMS MADE BY THE CRITICS.

The Erasmus myth has been proven to be a myth, and even Mr Metzger ADMITTED IT (he was the one who POPULARISED THE MYTH IN THE FIRST PLACE, and since scholarship weighed in on the question RETRACTED HIS CLAIM.)

The FACT is that without the Comma the grammar is a garbled mess, a Greek impossibility, but with the Comma it makes perfect grammatical sense - an UNDISPUTED FACT as far as I know, which even the critics ADMIT.

The only fluff is the CRITICS' ARGUMENTS which I have shown are INCONSISTENT, and MISLEADING as to the FACTS of the case.

If anyone can show any claim I have made in this thread is FALSE, I will GLADLY retract it.

I get sick and tired of all this RHETORIC being thrown into a DISCUSSION. People just make CLAIMS and offer ZERO to the discussion. And they completely IGNORE anything offered which might contradict what they already believe and pretend like nothing in the world opposes them except idiots and fantasies.

Now, if anyone has any REAL contribution to make, if you believe that 1 John 5:7 ought to be thrown out of the Bible, then bring on the evidence.

The claims were made 'only a few late manuscripts have this reading' but I have already shown that is not only FALSE but MISLEADING and INCONSISTENT, because there is a WEALTH of early evidence attesting to the authenticity of the Johannine Comma as well as the fact that the minority readings are sometimes to be PREFERRED.

If the critics' arguments against this verse were valid, they would have to eliminate hundreds of verses from their own translations which stand on just as shaky if not worse ground, textually speaking.

I dealt with the oldest is best argument.

I dealt with the 'only a few late manuscripts' argument.

I dealt with the Erasmus argument.

I dealt with early quotations.

I dealt with multiple textual traditions and language families.

I dealt with the internal textual evidence.

I dealt with the historical/theological evidence.

What else is there?

"Oh, trinitarians claim this verse proves their doctrine, and it kinda sounds like it does, so it must be spurious."

You people need to quit listening to trinitarians so much, you have bought into their own demonic propaganda.

Oh but let us not stop there.

Now we have apostolics questioning Matthew 28:19. They say that too should probably not be in the Bible.

What next?

Shall we just expunge every verse that mentions Father, Son, and Spirit together in one passage, and claim it was 'trinitarian interpolations'?

The fatal error of Marcion is alive and well I see...

Originally Posted by Eliseus

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.

Since the words were ADDED to scripture (I'll even accept that it was an innocent copying mistake where a comment in the margins was accidentally put into the actual text), they are not the words of God. I would have expected you to know that.

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.

Excuse me, I'm a trinitarian. Leaving it in would actually support my doctrine. But accurate manuscripts and accurate translation of the manuscripts is far more important to me.

, 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.

I'm willing to accept that the insertion into the later manuscripts was an innocent mistake. Again, I' a trinitarian and I am arguing that the Johannine Comma doesn't belong in the passage.

more, 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?

Well, I don't have that problem since I don't use the passage when sharing the gospel with someone and I don't generally use the KJV when sharing the gospel with someone. I use mainly the English Standard Version or the New American Standard Bible.

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.

It's a lot simpler than you think. The older manuscripts do not contain the Comma and, therefore, the Comma doesn't belong.

Originally Posted by Chan

It's a lot simpler than you think. The older manuscripts do not contain the Comma and, therefore, the Comma doesn't belong.

First, this is illogical. If we discovered Marcion's text, we would have one of the oldest extant manuscripts possible, and yet who would argue that whatever is not in his manuscript should be removed from our Bibles?

Secondly, the oldest manuscript does not necessarily equal the oldest reading, for it is possible for a reading found in a later manuscript to actually be older than the 'older' manuscript.

Case in point: The 'oldest manuscripts' which you claim do not have the Comma are how old? Are you talking Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, etc? 4th century manuscripts?

Well, Cyprian expressly quoted the Comma back in the 3rd century - ergo the reading of the later Greek manuscripts which contain the Comma is an older reading than the 'older' manuscripts.

Thirdly, the passage is in Old Latin manuscripts which are as old as the 'older Greek manuscripts'.

Fourthly, the Council of Carthage quoted the text in question in 450 AD, and was never challenged as having created Scripture out of whole cloth.

Fifthly, the oldest and best manuscripts, as the Critics like to call them, are not in agreement with each other in thousands of places. What do we do then?

Sixthly, the Greek manuscripts which do not contain the Comma are generally 'late' by text critical standards. There are a few early Greek texts with the Comma, and a few early Greek texts without the Comma. In either event, the number of ALL Greek texts of the entire chapter is small compared the total number of Greek manuscripts available. The arguments put forward here about 'it doesn't appear in the older manuscripts' and about how 'only a handful of manuscripts contain the Comma' are misleading and disingenuous.

[Brett Prince]

Eliseus,

I don't know who you are, or from where you have previously known me--but you miss the point.

All of the arguments you put forth are straight out of the KJV-only textbook. I did not say you were KJV only. These are the same basic arguments advocated by those that are.

Secondly, the Erasmus myth has never meant much to me. I don't believe you can hold to the Comma being inspired...for it does not add up in light of the multiplicity of evidence. All of the rest of the verbiage can be summed up into this: One accepts the text as Bible, thus we have to maintain that it is Bible, in order that we don't destroy our faith in the Bible being the Word of God. That is poor scholarship. There is no other way for me to put. I have seen far too much evidence of this passage having been a margin note in the majority of the MSS, thus I cannot receive it as authoritative.

I would have less of a hard time believing that it was inspired, and an interpolation from somewhere else, thus marginalized, and then later re-added. Thus, when I refer to an interpolation, I do not necessarily immediately consider the interpolation to have been uninspired--just that it did not fit where they put it, necessarily.

When you are through with the Comma--why don't we move onto the snake passage in Mark 16? It would prove a far more crucial and interesting scripture than the Comma, IMO.

[Brett Prince]

BTW, Eliseus, if I knew who you were, even what old userid you may have used--it might help me to accept your arguments in a different light. Right now, it seems to come from a particular slant that I find quite hard to receive.

[Theresa]

is anyone else just as lost as a goose?

I mean really, it's english they are speaking, I can read it clearly..

but it makes no sense. I dont even know what these words mean.

Are they making this stuff up?

Originally Posted by Eliseus

First, this is illogical. If we discovered Marcion's text, we would have one of the oldest extant manuscripts possible, and yet who would argue that whatever is not in his manuscript should be removed from our Bibles?

I would certainly give serious consideration to Marcion's text.

Secondly, the oldest manuscript does not necessarily equal the oldest reading, for it is possible for a reading found in a later manuscript to actually be older than the 'older' manuscript.

Possible but not likely, unless you're saying that people have actually tampered with manuscripts. If, as was theoretically supposed to happen, scribes merely COPIED the manuscripts, then there should not have been any difference between older and newer manuscripts.

Case in point: The 'oldest manuscripts' which you claim do not have the Comma are how old? Are you talking Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, etc? 4th century manuscripts?

Most manuscripts.

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.

*1 a: a brief explanation (as in the margin or between the lines of a text) of a difficult or obscure word or expression b: a false and often willfully misleading interpretation (as of a text)

Well, Cyprian expressly quoted the Comma back in the 3rd century - ergo the reading of the later Greek manuscripts which contain the Comma is an older reading than the 'older' manuscripts.

Did he actually QUOTE John or did he merely comment? See above.

Thirdly, the passage is in Old Latin manuscripts which are as old as the 'older Greek manuscripts'.

Not relevant. Latin manuscripts are translations of the Greek. We can no more rely on them than if we were to rely on an English translation to tell us how the Greek should read.

Fourthly, the Council of Carthage quoted the text in question in 450 AD, and was never challenged as having created Scripture out of whole cloth.

Again, as with Cyprian, did they actually QUOTE it from scripture or was it merely commentary?

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.

Fifthly, the oldest and best manuscripts, as the Critics like to call them, are not in agreement with each other in thousands of places. What do we do then?

We do whatever it is scholars and translators do with the discrepancies.

Sixthly, the Greek manuscripts which do not contain the Comma are generally 'late' by text critical standards. There are a few early Greek texts with the Comma, and a few early Greek texts without the Comma. In either event, the number of ALL Greek texts of the entire chapter is small compared the total number of Greek manuscripts available. The arguments put forward here about 'it doesn't appear in the older manuscripts' and about how 'only a handful of manuscripts contain the Comma' are misleading and disingenuous.

The Comma is generally absent from the Greek manuscripts. In fact, they only appear in the text of four late medieval manuscripts. They seem to have originated as a marginal note added to certain Latin manuscripts during the middle ages, which was eventually incorporated into the text of most of the later Vulgate manuscripts. In the Clementine edition of the Vulgate the verses were printed thus:

Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant [in caelo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. 8 Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra:] spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis: et hi tres unum sunt.

From the Vulgate, then, it seems that the Comma was translated into Greek and inserted into some printed editions of the Greek text, and in a handful of late Greek manuscripts.

Also...

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.
• 88: a variant reading in a sixteenth century hand, added to the fourteenth-century codex Regius of Naples.
• 221: a variant reading added to a tenth-century manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
• 429: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Wolfenbüttel.
• 629: a fourteenth or fifteenth century manuscript in the Vatican.
• 636: 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.

It should also be noted that modern advocates of the Textus Receptus 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 manuscripts lack them. Further, these KJV advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. But this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text. Further, it puts these Protestant proponents in the awkward and self-contradictory position of having to affirm that the Roman Catholic humanist, Erasmus, was just as inspired as the apostles, for on several occasions he invented readings—due either to carelessness or lack of Greek manuscripts (in particular, for the last six verses of Revelation Erasmus had to back-translate from Latin to Greek).

Also, even conservative scholars such as David Bernard, admit the doubtfulness of this passage. In The Oneness of God, 1983, page 141. He states: "...there is practically unanimous agreement among Bible scholars that this verse is not really part of the Bible at all! All major translations since the King James Version have omitted it..."

It should also be noted that in the Eastern Church (Orthodox) where Greek was still being used, not one manuscript had the Comma.