# Johannine Comma



## JM

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Is the Johannine Comma part of the New Testament?


----------



## ADKing

Yes, It is part of Scripture.

http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/A102.pdf


----------



## FrielWatcher

Why wouldn't it be?


----------



## SolaScriptura

The only reason Erasmus included it in his text was because he lost a bet.


----------



## Grace Alone

SolaScriptura said:


> The only reason Erasmus included it in his text was because he lost a bet.



Can you explain that, please? Thanks!


----------



## JM

It was a joke...[I hope lol ]


----------



## nicnap

SolaScriptura said:


> The only reason Erasmus included it in his text was because he lost a bet.



Hogwash...even the chief herald of the CT, Metzger admits this story is false. (B. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, p. 291)


----------



## SolaScriptura

Grace Alone said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason Erasmus included it in his text was because he lost a bet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain that, please? Thanks!
Click to expand...


As you may know, Erasmus did not include the Comma in either the first or second editions of his Greek text. Erasmus promised his Romanist detractors that he would kindly include the Comma in his third edition if even one Greek manuscript containing the Comma could be produced.... A monk (can't recall the order) forged a Greek text containing it by translating the Comma from the Latin into Greek. Erasmus was then shown this manuscript and, being a man of his word, included the Comma in his 3rd edition.

I have to say that if true, this story makes Erasmus look like a spineless idiot.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

According to question 9 of the larger catechism it is. It is listed as a scripture proof for the Trinity. Poor Thomas Watson thought it was. He listed it for a proof as well in "A Body of Divinity".
The CT plants seeds of unbelief in my opinion. According to some proponents of the CT 1Jhn 5:7 and other passages such as the last verses of Mark 16 along with John 7:59 through 8:11 are not part of the scripture. How does this build up one's faith in the Word of God?


----------



## SolaScriptura

nicnap said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason Erasmus included it in his text was because he lost a bet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hogwash...even the chief herald of the CT, Metzger admits this story is false. (B. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, p. 291)
Click to expand...


Perhaps. But then again, he would argue that most of the stories from the past are false. 

Have you actually read Metzger? I doubt it. You may be surprised what his quote actually says if you did more than cut and paste from your favorite KJV only sites...


----------



## nicnap

Actually I have...as a matter of fact it was required reading at RTS where I was a student. Also it is sitting on my shelf here in my study...an easily handy reference. 

I believe no personal attacks were made against you...you could as a Christian gentleman limit your attacks to the text at hand. Very uncharitable...and un-Christlike.


----------



## TimV

Well, let's see the quote, since most of us don't have it in our libraries.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

SolaScriptura said:


> nicnap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason Erasmus included it in his text was because he lost a bet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hogwash...even the chief herald of the CT, Metzger admits this story is false. (B. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, p. 291)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps. But then again, he would argue that most of the stories from the past are false.
> 
> Have you actually read Metzger? I doubt it. You may be surprised what his quote actually says if you did more than cut and paste from your favorite KJV only sites...
Click to expand...


Hi:

I have read Metzger's "story" and he produces no scholarly proof for his assertion. Erasmus scholars such as De Jong and Bainton have challenged Metzger's "story" and have found no evidence to back it up.

It is time for those who propose this story as real to produce some scholarly evidence for their assertions - a statement or letter from Erasmus perhaps?

By the way, Codex Montifortanius, which is the Codex that was supposedly hastily put together and used to "prove" to Erasmus the Comma, has been dated to the 13th Century - a couple of hundred years before Erasmus was even born!

Blessings,

Rob

See: C. Forster, A New Plea for the Authenticity of the Text of the Three 
Heavenly Witnesses, p. 126
A. Clark, The New Testament: A Commentary and Critical Notes, Vol. 6, p. 
928-929

-RPW


----------



## FrielWatcher

lighten the mood....


----------



## KMK

SolaScriptura said:


> nicnap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason Erasmus included it in his text was because he lost a bet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hogwash...even the chief herald of the CT, Metzger admits this story is false. (B. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, p. 291)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps. But then again, he would argue that most of the stories from the past are false.
> 
> Have you actually read Metzger? I doubt it. You may be surprised what his quote actually says if you did more than cut and paste from your favorite KJV only sites...
Click to expand...




FrielWatcher said:


> lighten the mood....



The mood always gets ramped up in these discussions because of the elitist attitude among many CT advocates. There is a presupposition that all TR advocates are ignorant of textual criticism and merely 'cut and paste' their arguments from the same web sites. While this may sometimes be true, anyone who has been on PB for a period of time should know better.


----------



## nicnap

TimV said:


> Well, let's see the quote, since most of us don't have it in our libraries.



Sorry, didn't see this. Here is the Metzger quote:

What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus' promise to include the Comma Johanneum if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent suspicion that MS. 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H.J. de Jonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion.


----------



## DMcFadden

a b c d Theodore H. Mann, "Textual problems in the KJV New Testament", in: *Journal of Biblical Studies* 1 (January–March 2001).

The story of Erasmus' promise has been accepted as fact by scholars, repeated by even so eminent an authority as Bruce M. Metzger (cited in his earlier works but backed away from after De Jonge's research was published in 1980). De Jonge concludes that this account is spurious in his 1980 paper on the subject. HJ de Jonge, 'Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum', *Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses *56 (1980): 381–389.

De Jong suspects that Erasmus included the Comma in his third edition (based on MM61, prepared by the Franciscan) in order to avoid being accused of heresy himself. He also speculates that he didn't want to hurt the reception for this Greek New Testament.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

DMcFadden said:


> a b c d Theodore H. Mann, "Textual problems in the KJV New Testament", in: *Journal of Biblical Studies* 1 (January–March 2001).
> 
> The story of Erasmus' promise has been accepted as fact by scholars, repeated by even so eminent an authority as Bruce M. Metzger (cited in his earlier works but backed away from after De Jonge's research was published in 1980). De Jonge concludes that this account is spurious in his 1980 paper on the subject. HJ de Jonge, 'Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum', *Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses *56 (1980): 381–389.
> 
> De Jong suspects that Erasmus included the Comma in his third edition (based on MM61, prepared by the Franciscan) in order to avoid being accused of heresy himself. He also speculates that he didn't want to hurt the reception for this Greek New Testament.



The actual quote from De Jong reads thus:



> For the sake of his ideal Erasmus chose to avoid any occasion for slander rather than persisting in philological accuracy and thus condemning himself to impotence. That was the reason why Erasmus included the Comma Johanneum even though he remained convinced that it did not belong to the original text of l John


Which indicates that the majority of the scholars - both Protestant and Catholic - at the time of Erasmus understood the Comma to be genuine. Erasmus bowed to pressure - but it was not because he lost a bet or because of the weight of some hastily produced mss.

Grace and Peace,

-Rob


----------



## DMcFadden

Interestingly, the Anchor Bible Dictionary cites de Jonge but repeats the Erasmus story anyway!



> In view of the paucity of external evidence and the transcriptional probability that the Comma arose due to theological reasons, this reading would have been relegated to a historical footnote had it not been for certain events in the 16th century. Observing that the Comma occurred only in the Lat version and not in any Gk manuscript known to him, Erasmus omitted it from his editions of the Gk testament in 1516 and 1519. Stunica, editor of the Complutensian Polyglott (printed 1514; published 1522), assailed Erasmus for omitting the Comma and included it in his own text, translated from the Lat. In response to a wider outcry, Erasmus maintained that he had searched many Gk manuscripts, failing to find even one which contained the Comma. Ms. 61, containing the Comma and apparently produced at the time for that very purpose, was brought to Erasmus’ attention and, fearing a negative response to his edition, he included the Comma in his 3d edition of 1522, but not without suspicion that 61 had been revised according to the Lat. The reading was accepted into Stephanus’ 3d edition of 1550 and the Elzevir text of 1633, later known as the Textus Receptus. It then achieved wider currency in the Clementine Vg in 1592, which became the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church, and in the Rheims edition. Not originally in Luther’s Bible, later editors added it to his text beginning in 1582. Although earlier bracketed by Tyndale as questionable, the reading was adopted in the KJV. Thus the Comma gained widespread acceptance in the 16th and 17th centuries.


Freedman, D. N. (1996, c1992). *The Anchor Bible Dictionary *(3:883). New York: Doubleday.

"For a full account of the so-called “Comma Johanneum” (the “Johannine Comma”; κόμμα means “section,” or “clause”) see Westcott, 202–209; Metzger, Textual Commentary, 715–17; Marshall, 236 n. 19; Schnackenburg, 44–46, and the literature there cited."
Smalley, S. S. (2002). Vol. 51: Word Biblical Commentary : *1,2,3 John*. Word Biblical Commentary (273). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

Metzger's comments from his latest Textual Commentary are as follows:



> 5.7–8 μαρτυροῦντες, 8 τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα {A}
> 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). London; New York: United Bible Societies.

BTW, Ken, I think that the problem has less to do with elitism than with socialization. Most of us seminary grads, whether in liberal mainline schools or places as conservative as Master's or Dallas, were taught that there is NO significant opposition to the CT. I only discovered Maurice Robinson in recent years, being familiar with Pickering on the TR side and Carson's answer to him.

Pardon some of us for parroting what we learned in school. As a teacher, you know how influential you guys are in the lives of impressionable young folks. 

I struggle with the issue today as one of a small handful of things I have been reconsidering. At this point, however, my mind still sides with the majority on the CT side despite my emotional hope that the TR people might be right.


----------



## SRoper

Did the early church fathers ever use the Johannine Comma in their defense of the doctrine of the Trinity?


----------



## CalvinandHodges

*A brief answer to Metzger and others*

Hi:

The Commentary produced by the Anchor Bible has a whole appendix devoted to the Comma deletist position in their volume on 1 John. They have amassed every argument they could find in order to prove the non-existence of the Comma. It is also quite hostile in its tone.

Metzger's points above have been answered quite comprehensively in books, and here at other threads. Here is a brief summary:

1) The lack of Greek manuscripts: So what? The Critical text includes as authoritative some readings that have even less of a Greek textual witness than the Comma. Matthew 11:19, for example, is changed in the CT on the basis of only *Three* Greek mss. Metzger does not mention Codex Wizenburgensis (Sp? - I am doing this from memory). Which, according to R.L. Dabney, "Lachman says is of the 8th Century." Why the omission? Finally, if the Critical Text is going to use passages that hold to minority readings, then their argument that this particular minority reading is invalid *because it is a minority reading* is counter-intuitive.

2) That it is not quoted by the early Greek Fathers is not an argument against the Comma. Everyone knows that the early Greek church was almost overrun by Arianism. We should expect that scribes hostile to the Trinity will dispute the passage, and seek to edit it out. Also, the controversy was concerning the Persons of the Trinity. The Arians/Modalists held that there was only one Person, and three "modes" in which this one Person expressed himself: Father, Son, and Spirit. The Orthodox held to One Divine Essence and Three distinct Persons in the Godhead. The Comma in reading "These three are one" could be interpreted from a modalistic viewpoint.

So, one can easily imagine the Early Church Fathers not using this particular passage in their arguments for Orthodoxy for the following two reasons: 1. They did not want to get into a long-winded debate about the inclusion of a disputed passage when there is clear testimony elsewhere. 2. If they did cite it, then they would have to explain why it refers to Three Persons and not three modes. Therefore, citing the passage would produce more controversy than it would solve.

Also, the Comma was cited at the Council of Carthage (circa 400 AD) and was used to support the doctrine of the Trinity - over 400 pastors (bishops) attended this Council from all over the Roman Empire. That Comma-deletists do not cite this information is indicative of a bias on their part.

3) This is just plain wrong: John Gill's Commentary on 1 John 5:7,8 points out that all (or the majority) of the ancient versions held the Comma. I am at Seminary now, and I do not have my copy of Gill's Commentary handy. The Comma was in the Waldensian Bible which Calvin refers to as among the "best copies" when he includes the Comma in his Commentary on the passage. The Waldensians used a varient of the Old Latin Bible of which Augustine said was the most exact copy of his time. The famous statement that Jerome makes concerning the Comma, "Irresponsible translators left out this testimony," is upheld as a genuine statement by Calvin as well.

Concerning his "internal probabliities" the first has been answered above (briefly). The second is disputed, and, consequently, does not carry much weight. Dabney, for example, points out that deleting the Comma produces an inconsistency in the text that cannot be resolved. Calvin also points out that the passage "flows better" with the Comma included.

Quite frankly, I do not believe that any argumentation on either side will convince one of the authenticity of the Comma. I believe that arguments can and should be used. However, the final arbiter of the Scriptures is not "scholarship" or "personal opinions," but the Spirit of God who works by and with the Word of God in our hearts. Consequently, I believe that the Comma was rendered delibertly vague as a means of testing your faith: Are you going to believe "scholars," or, are you going to believe the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit?

Grace and Peace,

Rob


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Edward F. Hills, _The King James Version Defended_:



> 3. The Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7)
> 
> In the Textus Receptus 1 John 5:7-8 reads as follows:
> 
> 7 For there are three that bear witness IN HEAVEN, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT: AND THESE THREE ARE ONE. 8 AND THERE ARE THREE THAT BEAR WITNESS IN EARTH, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
> 
> The words printed in capital letters constitute the so-called Johannine comma, the best known of the Latin Vulgate readings of the Textus Receptus, a reading which, on believing principles, must be regarded as possibly genuine. This comma has been the occasion of much controversy and is still an object of interest to textual critics. One of the more recent discussions of it is found in Windisch's Katholischen Briefe (revised by Preisker, 1951); (26) a more accessible treatment of it in English is that provided by A. D. Brooke (1912) in the International Critical Commentary. (27) Metzger (1964) also deals with this passage in his handbook, but briefly. (28)
> 
> (a) How the Johannine Comma Entered the Textus Receptus
> 
> As has been observed above, the Textus Receptus has both its human aspect and its divine aspect, like the Protestant Reformation itself or any other work of God's providence. And when we consider the manner in which the Johannine comma entered the Textus Receptus, we see this human element at work. Erasmus omitted the Johannine comma from the first edition (1516) of his printed Greek New Testament on the ground that it occurred only in the Latin version and not in any Greek manuscript. To quiet the outcry that arose, he agreed to restore it if but one Greek manuscript could be found which contained it. When one such manuscript was discovered soon afterwards, bound by his promise, he included the disputed reading in his third edition (1522), and thus it gained a permanent place in the Textus Receptus. The manuscript which forced Erasmus to reverse his stand seems to have been 61, a 15th or 16th-century manuscript now kept at Trinity College, Dublin. Many critics believe that this manuscript was written at Oxford about 1520 for the special purpose of refuting Erasmus, and this is what Erasmus himself suggested in his notes.
> 
> The Johannine comma is also found in Codex Ravianus, in the margin of 88, and in 629. The evidence of these three manuscripts, however, is not regarded as very weighty, since the first two are thought to have taken this disputed reading from early printed Greek texts and the latter (like 61) from the Vulgate.
> 
> But whatever may have been the immediate cause, still, in the last analysis, it was not trickery which was responsible for the inclusion of the Johannine comma in the Textus Receptus but the usage of the Latin-speaking Church. It was this usage which made men feel that this.reading ought to be included in the Greek text and eager to keep it there after its inclusion had been accomplished. Back of this usage, we may well believe, was the guiding providence of God, and therefore the Johannine comma ought to be retained as at least possibly genuine.
> 
> (b) The Early Existence of the Johannine Comma
> 
> Evidence for the early existence of the Johannine comma is found in the Latin versions and in the writings of the Latin Church Fathers. For example, it seems to have been quoted at Carthage by Cyprian (c. 250) who writes as follows: "And again concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: and the Three are One." (29) It is true that Facundus, a 6th-century African bishop, interpreted Cyprian as referring to the following verse, (30) but, as Scrivener (1833) remarks, it is "surely safer and more candid" to admit that Cyprian read the Johannine comma in his New Testament manuscript "than to resort to the explanation of Facundus." (31)
> 
> The first undisputed citations of the Johannine comma occur in the writing of two 4th-century Spanish bishops, Priscillian, (32) who in 385 was beheaded by the Emperor Maximus on the charge of sorcery and heresy, and Idacius Clarus, (33) Priscillian's principal adversary and accuser. In the 5th century the Johannine comma was quoted by several orthodox African writers to defend the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals, who ruled North Africa from 489 to 534 and were fanatically attached to the Arian heresy. (34) And about the same time it was cited by Cassiodorus (480-570), in Italy. (35) The comma is also found in r an Old Latin manuscript of the 5th or 6th century, and in the Speculum, a treatise which contains an Old Latin text. It was not included in Jerome's original edition of the Latin Vulgate but around the year 800 it was taken into the text of the Vulgate from the Old Latin manuscripts. It was found in the great mass of the later Vulgate manuscripts and in the Clementine edition of the Vulgate, the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church.
> 
> (c) Is the Johannine Comma an Interpolation?
> 
> Thus on the basis of the external evidence it is at least possible that the Johannine comma is a reading that somehow dropped out of the Greek New Testament text but was preserved in the Latin text through the usage of the Latin-speaking Church, and this possibility grows more and more toward probability as we consider the internal evidence.
> 
> In the first place, how did the Johannine comma originate if it be not genuine, and how did it come to be interpolated into the Latin New Testament text? To this question modern scholars have a ready answer. It arose, they say, as a trinitarian interpretation of I John 5:8, which originally read as follows: For there are three that bear witness the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. Augustine was one of those who interpreted 1 John 5:8 as referring to the Trinity. "If we wish to inquire about these things, what they signify, not absurdly does the Trinity suggest Itself, who is the one, only, true, and highest God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, concerning whom it could most truly be said, Three are Witnesses, and the Three are One. By the word spirit we consider God the Father to be signified, concerning the worship of whom the Lord spoke, when He said, God is a spirit. By the word blood the Son is signified, because the Word was made flesh. And by the word water we understand the Holy Spirit. For when Jesus spoke concerning the water which He was about to give the thirsty, the evangelist says, This He spake concerning the Spirit whom those that believed in Him would receive. " (36)
> 
> Thus, according to the critical theory, there grew up in the Latin speaking regions of ancient Christendom a trinitarian interpretation of the spirit, the water, and the blood mentioned in 1 John 5:8, the spirit signifying the Father, the blood the Son, and the water the Holy Spirit And out of this trinitarian interpretation of 1 John 5:8 developed the Johannine comma, which contrasts the witness of the Holy Trinity in heaven with the witness of the spirit, the water, and the blood on earth.
> 
> But just at this point the critical theory encounters a serious difficulty. If the comma originated in a trinitarian interpretation of 1 John 5:8, why does it not contain the usual trinitarian formula, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Why does it exhibit the singular combination, never met with elsewhere, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit? According to some critics, this unusual phraseology was due to the efforts of the interpolator who first inserted the Johannine comma into the New Testament text. In a mistaken attempt to imitate the style of the Apostle John, he changed the term Son to the term Word. But this is to attribute to the interpolator a craftiness which thwarted his own purpose in making this interpolation, which was surely to uphold the doctrine of the Trinity, including the eternal generation of the Son. With this as his main concern it is very unlikely that he would abandon the time-honored formula, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and devise an altogether new one, Father, Word, and Holy Spirit.
> 
> In the second place, the omission of the Johannine comma seems to leave the passage incomplete. For it is a common scriptural usage to present solemn truths or warnings in groups of three or four, for example, the repeated Three things, yea four of Proverbs 30, and the constantly recurring refrain, for three transgressions and for four, of the prophet Amos. In Genesis 40 the butler saw three branches and the baker saw three baskets. And in Matt. 12:40 Jesus says, As Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. It is in accord with biblical usage, therefore, to expect that in 1 John 5:7-8 the formula, there are three that bear witness, will be repeated at least twice. When the Johannine comma is included, the formula is repeated twice. When the comma is omitted, the formula is repeated only once, which seems strange.
> 
> In the third place, the omission of the Johannine comma involves a grammatical difficulty. The words spirit, water, and blood are neuter in gender, but in 1 John 5:8 they are treated as masculine. If the Johannine comma is rejected, it is hard to explain this irregularity. It is usually said that in 1 John 5:8 the spirit, the water, and the blood are personalized and that this is the reason for the adoption of the masculine gender. But it is hard to see how such personalization would involve the change from the neuter to the masculine. For in verse 6 the word Spirit plainly refers to the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity. Surely in this verse the word Spirit is "personalized," and yet the neuter gender is used. Therefore since personalization did not bring about a change of gender in verse 6, it cannot fairly be pleaded as the reason for such a change in verse 8. If, however, the Johannine comma is retained, a reason for placing the neuter nouns spirit, water, and blood in the masculine gender becomes readily apparent. It was due to the influence of the nouns Father and Word, which are masculine. Thus the hypothesis that the Johannine comma is an interpolation is full of difficulties.
> 
> (d) Reasons for the Possible Omission of the Johannine Comma
> 
> For the absence of the Johannine comma from all New Testament documents save those of the Latin-speaking West the following explanations are possible.
> 
> In the first place, it must be remembered that the comma could easily have been omitted accidentally through a common type of error which is called homoioteleuton (similar ending). A scribe copying 1 John 5:7-8 under distracting conditions might have begun to write down these words of verse 7, there are three that bear witness, but have been forced to look up before his pen had completed this task. When he resumed his work, his eye fell by mistake on the identical expression in verse 8. This error would cause him to omit all of the Johannine comma except the words in earth, and these might easily have been dropped later in the copying of this faulty copy. Such an accidental omission might even have occurred several times, and in this way there might have grown up a considerable number of Greek manuscripts which did not contain this reading.
> 
> In the second place, it must be remembered that during the 2nd and 3rd centuries (between 220 and 270, according to Harnack); (37) the heresy which orthodox Christians were called upon to combat was not Arianism (since this error had not yet arisen) but Sabellianism (so named after Sabellius, one of its principal promoters), according to which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were one in the sense that they were identical. Those that advocated this heretical view were called Patripassians (Father-sufferers), because they believed that God the Father, being identical with Christ, suffered and died upon the cross, and Monarchians, because they claimed to uphold the Monarchy (sole-government) of God.
> 
> It is possible, therefore, that the Sabellian heresy brought the Johannine comma into disfavor with orthodox Christians. The statement, these three are one, no doubt seemed to them to teach the Sabellian view that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit were identical. And if during the course of the controversy manuscripts were discovered which had lost this reading in the accidental manner described above, it is easy to see how the orthodox party would consider these mutilated manuscripts to represent the true text and regard the Johannine comma as a heretical addition. In the Greek-speaking East especially the comma would be unanimously rejected, for here the struggle against Sabellianism was particularly severe.
> 
> Thus it was not impossible that during the 3rd century amid the stress and strain of the Sabellian controversy, the Johannine comma lost its place in the Greek text, but was preserved in the Latin texts of Africa and Spain, where the influence of Sabellianism was probably not so great. In other words, it is not impossible that the Johannine comma was one of those few true readings of the Latin Vulgate not occurring in the Traditional Greek Text but incorporated into the Textus Receptus under the guiding providence of God. In these rare instances God called upon the usage of the Latin-speaking Church to correct the usage of the Greek speaking Church. (38)


----------



## JM

> For example, it seems to have been quoted at Carthage by Cyprian (c. 250) who writes as follows: "And again concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: and the Three are One." (29) It is true that Facundus, a 6th-century African bishop, interpreted Cyprian as referring to the following verse, (30) but, as Scrivener (1833) remarks, it is "surely safer and more candid" to admit that Cyprian read the Johannine comma in his New Testament manuscript "than to resort to the explanation of Facundus." (31)



Can anyone supply the quoting of the Johannine Comma from Cyprian, Facundus, etc?


----------



## Archlute

SRoper said:


> Did the early church fathers ever use the Johannine Comma in their defense of the doctrine of the Trinity?



No. And that is why I think that the veracity of the story about Erasmus doesn't make a difference either way. Just looking at the mss evidence makes it difficult to believe that it is part of John's original. The fact that it was not quoted even once during the Trinitarian debates of the Nicene era happens to be one of the biggest historical obstacles for its advocates yet to overcome.

There are linguistic parallels found in several passages by a couple of the early writers (Tertullian is one, if you compare his Latin with that of the Vulgate's), but no specific citations of the passage. Francis Turretin mentions some mss that Jerome had in his possession, which supposedly contained the comma, but he provides no further proof.

I was quite interested in this several years back, and did a great deal of research regarding it, and hoping to be convinced regarding the place of the comma in the canon, but the more I looked into it (and I looked much, much farther than just the writings of CT advocates) the more I became convinced that it is not original. 

All that, and my faith in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity hasn't wavered in the least! (by which I mean to say that the constant claim that a CT position will undermine one's faith is really just an unfounded scare tactic by those who have otherwise failed to convince their brothers that the TR/MajTxt position is correct, in my opinion.)


----------



## KMK

Archlute said:


> I was quite interested in this several years back, and did a great deal of research regarding it, and hoping to be convinced regarding the place of the comma in the *canon*, but the more I looked into it (and I looked much, much farther than just the writings of CT advocates) the more I became convinced that it is not *original*.



You may not believe it is 'original' but, if you are going to subscribe to the WCF, then you must accept it as 'canon'.


----------



## JohnGill

nicnap said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let's see the quote, since most of us don't have it in our libraries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, didn't see this. Here is the Metzger quote:
> 
> What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus' promise to include the Comma Johanneum if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent suspicion that MS. 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H.J. de Jonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion.
Click to expand...


Just one suggestion. You may want to give the Edition you are using. I have a 4th Edition which has the de Jonge material as footnote 22 on pg 146.

Are you using the 3rd Edition?

And yes the Comma is genuine.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

JM said:


> For example, it seems to have been quoted at Carthage by Cyprian (c. 250) who writes as follows: "And again concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: and the Three are One." (29) It is true that Facundus, a 6th-century African bishop, interpreted Cyprian as referring to the following verse, (30) but, as Scrivener (1833) remarks, it is "surely safer and more candid" to admit that Cyprian read the Johannine comma in his New Testament manuscript "than to resort to the explanation of Facundus." (31)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone supply the quoting of the Johannine Comma from Cyprian, Facundus, etc?
Click to expand...


Cyprian, _De Catholic eccleiae unitate_, c.6: 

"dicit Dominus Ego et pater unum sumus et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scritum est Et tres unum sunt."

Facundus, _Pro defensione trium capit_. i.3:

"Quod tamen Ioannis apostoli yestimonium b. Cyprianus, Carthaginiensis antistes et martyr in epistola siue libro quem unitate sanctae ecclesiae scripsit, de patre et filio et spiritu sancto dictum intelligit."


----------



## Archlute

CalvinandHodges said:


> The actual quote from De Jong reads thus:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the sake of his ideal Erasmus chose to avoid any occasion for slander rather than persisting in philological accuracy and thus condemning himself to impotence. That was the reason why Erasmus included the Comma Johanneum even though he remained convinced that it did not belong to the original text of l John
> 
> 
> 
> Which indicates that the majority of the scholars - both Protestant and Catholic - at the time of Erasmus understood the Comma to be genuine. Erasmus bowed to pressure - but it was not because he lost a bet or because of the weight of some hastily produced mss.
> 
> Grace and Peace,
> 
> -Rob
Click to expand...



It must be understood that what you read in the quote by De Jong is his interpretation of the event. I really doubt that any of the primary documents surveyed by him went into any detail regarding the psychology behind the actions of Erasmus. I am also fairly certain that Erasmus never wrote as much about it himself, and therefore we return to the acknowledgment that De Jong's interpretation is a personal hypothesis of the motives behind an historical event, and not necessarily a true reflection of them. 

That also means that we cannot read De Jong's reconstruction, and then posit what must have been the thought of the broader Catholic/Protestant community on the issue. I could read source documents and secondary histories, and come up with two or three other reconstructions of a similar event, any or all of them which may or may not be an accurate reflection of events, motives, and broader opinion.


----------



## JM

Can we get a translation? lol


----------



## JohnGill

CalvinandHodges said:


> 3) This is just plain wrong: John Gill's Commentary on 1 John 5:7,8 points out that all (or the majority) of the ancient versions held the Comma.



From Gill's Exposition which is online:



> 1 John 5:7
> 
> Ver. 7. *For there are three that bear record in heaven*,.... That is, that Jesus is the Son of God. The genuineness of this text has been called in question by some, because it is wanting in the Syriac version, as it also is in the Arabic and Ethiopic versions; and because the old Latin interpreter has it not; and it is not to be found in many Greek manuscripts; nor cited by many of the ancient fathers, even by such who wrote against the Arians, when it might have been of great service to them: to all which it may be replied, that as to the Syriac version, which is the most ancient, and of the greatest consequence, it is but a version, and a defective one. The history of the adulterous woman in the eighth of John, the second epistle of Peter, the second and third epistles of John, the epistle of Jude, and the book of the Revelations, were formerly wanting in it, till restored from Bishop Usher's copy by De Dieu and Dr. Pocock, and who also, from an eastern copy, has supplied this version with this text. As to the old Latin interpreter, it is certain it is to be seen in many Latin manuscripts of an early date, and stands in the Vulgate Latin edition of the London Polyglot Bible: and the Latin translation, which bears the name of Jerom, has it, and who, in an epistle of his to Eustochium, prefixed to his translation of these canonical epistles, complains of the omission of it by unfaithful interpreters. And as to its being wanting in some Greek manuscripts, as the Alexandrian, and others, it need only be said, that it is to be found in many others; it is in an old British copy, and in the Complutensian edition, the compilers of which made use of various copies; and out of sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephens's, nine of them had it: and as to its not being cited by some of the ancient fathers, this can be no sufficient proof of the spuriousness of it, since it might be in the original copy, though not in the copies used by them, through the carelessness or unfaithfulness of transcribers; or it might be in their copies, and yet not cited by them, they having Scriptures enough without it, to defend the doctrine of the Trinity, and the divinity of Christ: and yet, after all, certain it is, that it is cited by many of them; by Fulgentius {z}, in the beginning of the "sixth" century, against the Arians, without any scruple or hesitation; and Jerom, as before observed, has it in his translation made in the latter end of the "fourth" century; and it is cited by Athanasius {a} about the year 350; and before him by Cyprian {b}, in the middle, of the "third" century, about the year 250; and is referred to by Tertullian {c} 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. The heavenly witnesses of Christ's sonship are,
> 
> *the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost*. The "Father" is the first Person, so called, not in, reference to the creatures, angels, or men, he is the Creator, and so the Father of; for this is common to the other two Persons; but in reference to his Son Jesus Christ, of whose sonship he bore witness at his baptism and transfiguration upon the mount. The "Word" is the second Person, who said and it was done; who spoke all things out of nothing in the first creation; who was in the beginning with God the Father, and was God, and by whom all things were created; he declared himself to be the Son of God, and proved himself to be so by his works and miracles; see
> Mr 14:61, &c. and his witness of himself was good and valid; see Joh 8:13; and because it is his sonship that is, here testified of, therefore the phrase, "the Word", and not "the Son", is here used. "The Holy Ghost" is the third Person, who proceeds from the Father, and is also called the Spirit of the Son, who testified of, Christ's sonship also at his baptism, by descending on him as a dove, which was the signal given to John the Baptist, by which he knew him, and bare record of him, that he was the Son of God. Now the number of these witnesses was three, there being so many persons in the Godhead; and such a number being sufficient, according to law, for the establishing of any point: to which may be added, that they were witnesses in heaven, not to the heavenly inhabitants, but to men on earth; they were so called, because they were in heaven, and from thence gave out their testimony; and which shows the firmness and excellency of it, it being not from earth, but from heaven, and not human, but divine; to which may be applied the words of Job, in Job 16:19; it follows,
> 
> *and these three are one*; which is to be understood, not only of their unity and agreement in their testimony, they testifying of the same thing, the sonship of Christ; but of their unity in essence or nature, they being the one God. So that, this passage holds forth and asserts the unity of God, a trinity of persons in the Godhead, the proper deity of each person, and their distinct personality, the unity of essence in that they are one; a trinity of persons in that they are three, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and are neither more nor fewer; the deity of each person, for otherwise their testimony would not be the testimony of God, as in 1Jo 5:9; and their distinct personality; for were they not three distinct persons, they could not be three testifiers, or three that bare record. This being a proper place, I shall insert the faith of the ancient Jews concerning the doctrine of the Trinity; and the rather, as it agrees with the apostle's doctrine in words and language, as well as in matter. They call the three Persons in the Godhead three degrees: they say {d},
> 
> "Jehovah, Elohenu (our God), Jehovah, De 6:4; these are the three degrees with respect to this sublime mystery, in the beginning Elohim, or God, created, Ge 1:1, &c.''
> 
> And these three, they say, though they are distinct, yet are one, as appears by what follows {e}:
> 
> "come see the mystery of the word; there are three degrees, and every degree is by itself, yet they are all one, and are bound together in one, and one is not separated from the other.''
> 
> Again, it is said {f},
> 
> "this is the unity of Jehovah the first, Elohenu, Jehovah, lo, all of them are one, and therefore: called one; lo, the three names are as if they were one, and therefore are called one, and they are one; but by the revelation of the Holy Spirit it is made known, and they by the sight of the eye may be known, dxa Nyla atltd, "that these three are one": and this is the mystery of the voice which is heard; the voice is one, and there are three things, fire, and Spirit, and water, and all of them are one in the mystery of the voice, and they are but one: so here, Jehovah, Elohenu, Jehovah, they are one, the three, Nynwwg, forms, modes, or things, which are one.''
> 
> Once more {g},
> 
> "there are two, and one is joined unto them, and they are three; and when the three are one, he says to them, these are the two names which Israel heard, Jehovah, Jehovah, and Elohenu is joined unto them, and it is the seal of the ring of truth; and when they are joined as one, they are one in one unity.''
> 
> And this they illustrate by the three names of the soul of man {h};
> 
> "the three powers are all of them one, the soul, spirit, and breath, they are joined as one, and they are one; and all is according to the mode of the sublime mystery,''
> 
> meaning the Trinity.
> 
> "Says R. Isaac {i} worthy are the righteous in this world, and in the world to come, for lo, the whole of them is holy, their body is holy, their soul is holy, their Spirit is holy, their breath is holy, holy are these three degrees "according to the form above".--Come see these three degrees cleave together as one, the soul, Spirit, and breath.''
> 
> The three first Sephirot, or numbers, in the Cabalistic tree, intend the three divine Persons; the first is called the chief crown, and first glory, which essence no creature can comprehend {k}, and designs the Father, Joh 1:18; the second is called wisdom, and the intelligence illuminating, the crown of the creation, the brightness of equal unity, who is exalted above every head; and he is called, by the Cabalists, the second glory {l}; see 1Co 1:24 Heb 1:3. This is the Son of God: the third is called understanding sanctifying, and is the foundation of ancient wisdom, which is called the worker of faith; and he is the parent of faith, and from his power faith flows {m}; and this is the Holy Spirit; see 1Pe 1:2. Now they say {n} that these three first numbers are intellectual, and are not twdm, "properties", or "attributes", as the other seven are. R. Simeon ben Jochai says {o},
> 
> "of the three superior numbers it is said, Ps 62:11, "God hath spoken once, twice have I heard this"; one and two, lo the superior numbers of whom it is said, one, one, one, three ones, and this is the mystery of Ps 62:11.''
> 
> Says R. Judah Levi {p},
> 
> "behold the mystery of the numberer, the number, and the numbered; in the bosom of God it is one thing, in the bosom of man three; because he weighs with his understanding, and speaks with his mouth, and writes with his hand.''
> 
> It was usual with the ancient Jews to introduce Jehovah speaking, or doing anything, in this form, I and my house of judgment; and it is a rule with them, that wherever it is said, "and Jehovah", he and his house or judgment are intended {q}; and Jarchi frequently makes use of this phrase to explain texts where a plurality in the Godhead is intended, as Ge 1:26; and it is to be observed, that a house of judgment, or a sanhedrim, among the Jews, never consisted of less than three. They also had used to write the word "Jehovah" with three "Jods", in the form of a triangle,
> 
> y
> y y
> 
> as representing the three divine Persons: one of their more modern {r} writers has this observation on the blessing of the priest in Nu 6:24:
> 
> "these three verses begin with a "Jod", in reference to the three "Jods" which we write in the room of the name, (i.e. Jehovah,) for they have respect to the three superior things.''
> 
> {z} Respons. contr. Arian. obj. 10. & de Trinitate, c. 4. {a} Contr. Arium, p. 109. {b} De Unitate Eccles. p. 255. & in Ep. 73. ad Jubajan, p. 184. {c} Contr. Praxeam, c. 25. {d} Zohar in Gen. fol. 1. 3. {e} Ib. in Lev. fol. 27. 2. {f} Ib. in Exod. fol. 18. 3, 4. {g} lb. in Numb. fol. 67. 3. {h} lb. in Exod. fol. 73. 4. {i} lb. in Lev. fol. 29. 2. {k} Sepher Jetzira, Semit. 1. {l} Sepher Jetzira, Semit. 2. {m} Ib. Semit. 3. {n} R. Menachem apud Rittangel. in Jetzira, p. 193. {o} Tikkune Zohar apud ib. p. 64. {p} Apud ib. p. 38. {q} Zohar in Gen. fol. 48. 4. Jarchi in Gen. xix. 24. Vid. T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 6. 1. & Gloss. in ib. & Sanhedrin, fol. 3. 2. {r} R. Abraham Seba in Tzeror Hammor, fol. 113. 2.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

JM said:


> Can we get a translation? lol



The Cyprian translation has already been provided. Perhaps someone else can do the Facundus translation.


----------



## Archlute

KMK said:


> You may not believe it is 'original' but, if you are going to subscribe to the WCF, then you must accept it as 'canon'.



How so? 

I accept, along with the first chapter the WCF, that the first epistle of John is canonical, but there is no similar requirement of holding to the comma itself. No Presbyterian body of which I am aware requires subscription to the proof-texts of the standards, of which there have been variations throughout its history.

I find it kind of presumptuous for a Baptist pastor to be lecturing a Presbyterian ordinand regarding the subscription requirements of his own denomination.


----------



## nicnap

JohnGill said:


> nicnap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TimV said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, let's see the quote, since most of us don't have it in our libraries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, didn't see this. Here is the Metzger quote:
> 
> What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus' promise to include the Comma Johanneum if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent suspicion that MS. 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H.J. de Jonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just one suggestion. You may want to give the Edition you are using. I have a 4th Edition which has the de Jonge material as footnote 22 on pg 146.
> 
> Are you using the 3rd Edition?
> 
> And yes the Comma is genuine.
Click to expand...



The 3rd Edition...sorry.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

For those who are interested, a notable defense for the Johannine Comma is found in J.A. Bengel's _Gnomon_ (1864 ed., Vol. 2) which is available online in English here (see pp. 808-812): 

Gnomon of the New Testament ... - Google Book Search


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Perhaps it will be pardoned me if I enter an often neglected source of information on this topic, and a bit lengthy at that, but for the scholars among you but a bite of cake. (A link to the online version of this book is found in footnote 1 below.)

This is from Frederick Nolan’s book, _An Inquiry Into the Integrity Of the Greek Vulgate, Or Received Text Of the New Testament_, where he examines the causes of a number of omitted verses as exhibited in the Critical Text of M. Griesbach. After discussing Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11, he proceeds on to 1 John 5:7:

From these circumstances, I conceive, we may safely infer, that Eusebius’s copies agreed with his canons in omitting this passage (John 7:53-8:11): from which it was withdrawn by him in strict conformity to the powers with which he was vested by Constantine.

As it is probable that he omitted those passages, it is not less probable that he omitted at least one of those verses, 1 John v.7, the authenticity of which has been so long a subject of controversy. Indeed, the whole three inculcate a doctrine, which is somewhat at variance with what we know, on the most indisputable testimony, to have been his peculiar opinions. The doctrine of Christ being of _one substance_ with the Father is asserted in all of them [the omitted Scriptures]; though most particularly in St. John’s Epistle. But on the subject of this doctrine, it is notorious that Eusebius shamefully prevaricated in the celebrated Council of Nice. He first positively excepted against it, and then subscribed to it, and at length addressed a letter to his Church at Caesarea, in which he explained away his former compliance, and retracted what he has asserted. On a person of such versatility of principle no dependence ought to be placed; not that I am inclined to believe what has often been laid to his charge, that he was at heart an Arian. The truth is, as he has himself placed beyond a doubt,—he erred from a hatred to the peculiar notions of Sabellius, who, in maintaining that Christ was the First Person incarnate, had confounded the Persons, as it was conceived he divided the substance. [Note: The Sabellian heresy, also known as Modalism, or Monarchianisn, taught that there were not three Persons in the Godhead, but only one, and that Christ was the Father Himself incarnate. Thus Nolan thinks Eusebius omitted 1 John 5:7 to withdraw supposed Scriptural support to the Sabellians rather than the Arians. –SMR] Into this extreme he must have seen that the Catholicks [i.e. orthodox] were inclined to fall, in combating the opposite errour in Arius; and on this very point he consequently maintained a controversy with Marcellus of Ancyra, who was however acquitted of intentional errour, by St. Athanasius and the Council of Sardica. Whoever will now cast but a glance over the disputed texts, as they stand in our authorized version, will directly perceive that they afford a handle by which any person may lay hold who was inclined to lapse into the errours of Sabellius. Will it be therefore thought too much to lay to the charge of Eusebius to assert; that in preparing an edition of the Scriptures for general circulation, he provided against the chance of that danger which he feared, by canceling one of those passages, 1 John v.7; and altering the remainder, 1 Tim iii.16. Acts xx.28? [1]​
Nolan has shown a) the power of Eusebius to edit the texts for “use in doctrine”, b) the will – motive – to do so (believing his act would benefit the church), and c) the “textual fingerprints” of this omission pointing to his very own manuscripts. (This from an earlier discussion of Emperor Constantine’s commission to Eusebius to produce 50 Bibles for him after the destruction of many Scriptures during Diocletian’s persecution, and the theological pressures upon him during this production.)

Later in his investigation he looks again at why the orthodox believers did not use these disputed three verses, especially 1 John 5:7, against the Arians, as well as commencing a demonstration of the potency of the internal evidences manifest of their deliberate removal (which are lightly glossed over by many today):

The determination of the integrity of the Greek Vulgate, now turns on the decision of this question, whether those texts relative to the doctrine of the Incarnation, Redemption, and Trinity, which have already been mentioned, as impugned by the advocates of a more correct text than exists in our printed editions, must be considered authentick [sic] or spurious.

I have hitherto laboured to no purpose if it is not admitted, that I have already laid a foundation sufficiently broad and deep for maintaining the authenticity of the contested verses. The negative argument arising in their favour, from the probability that Eusebius suppressed them in his edition, has already been stated at large [footnote #188: see pages 27-42]. Some stress may be laid on this extraordinary circumstance, that the whole of the important interpolations, which are thus conceived to exist in the Received Text, were contrary to his peculiar notions. If we conceive them cancelled by him, there is nothing wonderful in the matter at issue; but if we conceive them subsequently interpolated, it is next to miraculous that they should be so circumstanced. And what must equally excite astonishment, to a certain degree they are not more opposed to the peculiar opinions of Eusebius, by whom I conceive they were cancelled, than of the Catholicks [orthodox (with a small “o”) believers –SMR], by whom it is conceived they were inserted in the text. When separated from the sacred context, as they are always in quotation, the doctrine which they appear most to favour is that of the Sabellians; but this heresy was as contrary to the tenets of those who conformed to the Catholick as of those who adhered to the Arian opinions. It thus becomes as improbable that the former should have inserted, as it is probable that the latter suppressed those verses; and just as probable is it, that both parties might have acquiesced in their suppression when they were once removed from the text of Scripture. If we connect this circumstance with that previously advanced, that Eusebius, the avowed adversary of the Sabellians, expunged these verses from his text, and that every manuscript from which they have disappeared is lineally descended from his edition, every difficulty in which this intricate subject is involved directly vanishes. The solution of the question lies in this narrow space, that he expunged them from the text, as opposed to his peculiar opinions: and the peculiar apprehensions which were indulged of Sabellianism, by the orthodox, prevented them from restoring those verses, or citing them in their controversies with the Arians.

Thus far we have but attained probability, though clearly of the highest degree, in favor of the authenticity of these disputed verses. The question before us is, however, involved in difficulties which still require a solution. In order to solve these, and to investigate more carefully the claims of those verses to authenticity, I shall lay them before the reader as they occur in the Greek and Latin Vulgate; subjoining those various readings which are supposed to preserve the genuine text. [2]​
Nolan then renders these disputed Scriptures in the two languages, as well as the texts from which they have been removed. He continues,

In proceeding to estimate the respective merit of these readings, the first attention is due to the internal evidence. In reasoning from it, we work upon solid ground. For the authenticity of some parts of verses in dispute we have that strong evidence which arises from universal consent; all manuscripts and translations supporting some part of the context of the contested passages. In the remaining parts we are given a choice between two readings, one only of which can be authentick. And in making our election, we have, in the common principles of plain sense and ordinary language, a certain rule by which we may be directed. Gross solecisms in the grammatical structure, palpable oversights in the texture of sense, cannot be ascribed to the inspired authors. If of any two given readings one be exposed to such objections, there is but the alternative, that the other must be authentick. [3]​
He continues with a close scrutiny of the selected passages in their respective Greek and Latin: Acts 20:28, 1 Timothy 3:16, and 1 John 5:7, examining both the sense of the passages in their contexts, and the grammar. As may be understood by those considering the grammar of the passage 1 John 5:6 and 5:8 when verse 7 is omitted, it is incorrect, but is perfect when 7 is included. But this is not all. Later in his work investigating the integrity of the Greek Vulgate (Received Text), he presents _positive external_ evidence.

On 1 John v.7 we may cite [its use in] Tertullian in the age next the apostolical, and St. Cyprian in the subsequent era. In the following age, we may quote Phoebadius, Marcus Celedensis, and Idatius Clarus; and in the succeeding age, Eucherius, Victor Vitensis, and Vigilius Tapsensis. Fulgentius and Cassiodorus occur in the next age; and Maximus in the subsequent: to whom we might add many others, or indeed the whole of the Western Church, who, after this period, generally adopted this verse in their authorized version…

With respect to 1 John v.7 the case is materially different [than the cases of 1 Tim 3:16 and Acts 20:28]. If this verse be received, it must be admitted on the single testimony of the Western Church; as far at least as respects the external evidence. And though it may seem unwarrantable to set aside the authority of the Greek Church, and pay exclusive respect to the Latin, where a question arises on the authenticity of a passage which properly belongs to the text of the former; yet when the doctrine inculcated in that passage is taken into account, there may be good reason for giving even a preference to the Western Church over that of the Eastern. The former was uncorrupted by the heresy of the Arians, who rejected the doctrine of the passage in question; the latter was wholly resigned to that heresy for at least forty years, while the Western Church retained its purity. And while the testimony borne by the latter on the subject before us, is consistent and full; that borne by the former is internally defective. It is delivered in language, which has not even the merit of being grammatically correct; while the testimony of the latter is not only unexceptional in itself, but possesses the singular merit of removing the forementioned imperfection, on being merely turned into Greek, and inserted in the context of the original. But numberless circumstances conspire to strengthen the authority of the Latin Church in supporting the authenticity of this passage. The particular Church on whose testimony principally we receive the disputed verse, is that of Africa. And even at the first sight, it must be evident, that the most implicit respect is due to its testimony.

In those great convulsions which agitated the Eastern and Western Churches, for eight years, with scarcely any intermission; and which subjected the sacred text to the greatest changes, through the vast tract of country which extends round the Levant, from Libya to Illyricum, the African provinces were exposed to the horrours of persecution but for an inconsiderable period. The Church, of course, which was established in this region, neither required a new supply of sacred books, nor received those which had been revised by Eusebius and St. Jerome; as removed out of the range of the influence of those ancient fathers.

As the African Church possessed this competency to deliver a pure unsophisticated testimony on the subject before us; that which it has borne is as explicit as it is plenary: since it is delivered in a Confession prepared by the whole church assembled in council. After the African provinces had been over-run by the Vandals, Hunnerick, their king, summoned the bishops of this church, and of the adjacent isles, to deliberate on the doctrine inculcated in the disputed passage. Between three and four hundred prelates attended the Council, which met at Carthage; and Eugenius, as bishop of that see, drew up the Confession of the orthodox, in which the contested verse is expressly quoted. That a whole church should thus concur in quoting a verse which was not contained in the received text, is wholly inconceivable: and admitting that 1 John v.7 was generally thus received, its universal presence in that text is only to be accounted for by supposing it to have existed in it from the beginning.

The testimony which the African church has borne on the subject before us, is not more strongly recommended by the universal consent, than the immemorial tradition of the evidence, which attests the authenticity of the contested passage. Victor Vitensis and Fulgentius, Marcus Celedensis, St. Cyprian, and Tertullian, were Africans, and have referred to the verse before us. Of these witnesses, which follow each other at almost equal intervals, the first is referred to the age of Eugenius, the last to that nearly of the Apostles. Thus they form a traditionary chain, carrying up the testimony of the African Church, until it loses itself in time immemorial.

The testimony of the African Church, which possesses these strong recommendations, receives confirmation from the corroborating evidence of other churches, which were similarly circumstanced. Phoebadius and Eucherius, the latter of whom had been translated from the Spanish to the Gallican Church, were members of the latter; and both these churches had been exempt, not less than the African, from the effects of Dioclesian’s persecution. Both these early fathers, Phoebadius and Eucherius, attest the authenticity of the contested passage: the testimony of the former is entitled to greater respect, as he boldly withstood the authority of Hosius, whose influence tended to extend the Arian opinions in the Western world, at the very period in which he cited the contested passage. In addition to these witnesses we have, in the testimony of Maximus, the evidence of a person, who visited the African Church; and who there becoming acquainted with the disputed passage, wrote a tract for the purpose of employing it against the Arians. The testimony of these witnesses forms a valuable accession to that of the African Church.

We may appeal to the testimony of the Greek Church in confirmation of the African Churches. Not to insist on positive testimonies, the disputed verse, though not supported by the _text_ of the original Greek, is clearly supported by its _context_. The latter does not agree so well with itself, as it does with the testimony of the African Church. *The grammatical structure, which is imperfect in itself, directly recovers its original integrity, on being filled up with the passage which is offered on the testimony of this witness.* Thus far the testimony of the Greek Church is plainly corroborative of that of the Western…

…I shall now venture to conclude, that the doctrinal integrity of the Greek Vulgate is established, in the vindication of these passages. It has been my endeavor to rest it upon its natural basis; the testimony of the two Churches, in the eastern and western world, in whose keeping the sacred trust was reposed…[4] [Bold emphasis added.]​
In this unusual demonstration Frederick Nolan has shown how major portions of the Christian Church did not lose the use – *the presence* – of this verse in their Bibles. It is clear this is not a “well-meant” but unlawful addition to God’s Word, but a part of it that stood in John’s 1st Epistle from the beginning.

To conclude Nolan’s contribution to our investigation on what is authentic and what is false regarding the texts, some of his own conclusions are drawn from his preface:

Another point to which the author has directed his attention, has been the old Italick translation…on this subject, the author perceived, without any labour of inquiry, that it derived its name from that diocese, which has been termed the Italick, as contradistinguished from the Roman. This is a supposition, which receives a sufficient confirmation from the fact,—that the principal copies of that version have been preserved in that diocese, the metropolitan church of which was situated in Milan. The circumstance is at present mentioned, as the authour thence formed a hope, that some remains of the primitive Italick version might be found in the early translations made by the Waldenses, who were the lineal descendants of the Italick Church; and who have asserted their independence against the usurpations of the Church of Rome, and have ever enjoyed the free use of the Scriptures. In the search to which these considerations have led the authour, his fondest expectations have been fully realized. It has furnished him with abundant proof on that point to which his Inquiry was chiefly directed; as it has supplied him with the unequivocal testimony of a truly apostolical branch of the primitive church, that the celebrated text of the heavenly witnesses was adopted in the version which prevailed in the Latin Church, previously to the introduction of the Modern Vulgate. [5] [emphasis added]​
In a lengthy footnote at this point, he documents the progress of the text of this primitive Italick version up into the mountain communities of the Waldenses and into the French language in a number of texts, and he states, “It thus easily made its way into Wicklef’s translation, through the Lollards, who were disciples of the Waldenses.” [6]
-----------
1 _Inquiry Into the Integrity Of the Greek Vulgate, Or Received Text Of the New Testament; in which the Greek Manuscripts are newly classed; the Integrity of the Authorised Text vindicated; and the Various Readings traced to their Origin_, by Fredrick Nolan ((London: F.C. and J. Rivington, 1815), pages 38, 39, 40, 41. Reprint available at Bible for Today ministry (see bibliography above). Nolan’s complete book online (save Preface): An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate
2 Ibid., pages 252-253.
3 Ibid., pages 254-255
4 Ibid., pages 291, 292, 293-305, 306.
5 Ibid., pages xvii, xviii.
6 Ibid., Footnote #1, pages xviii, xix.


----------



## KMK

Archlute said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may not believe it is 'original' but, if you are going to subscribe to the WCF, then you must accept it as 'canon'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> I accept, along with the first chapter the WCF, that the first epistle of John is canonical, but there is no similar requirement of holding to the comma itself. No Presbyterian body of which I am aware requires subscription to the proof-texts of the standards, of which there have been variations throughout its history.
> 
> I find it kind of presumptuous for a Baptist pastor to be lecturing a Presbyterian ordinand regarding the subscription requirements of his own denomination.
Click to expand...


I apologize. I would not presume to lecture a man of your stature. After reading my post again, I see how it might have sounded like a lecture.

How about if I rephrase it thusly: "As a subscriber to the WCF, you may believe it is not 'original', but you must believe it to be 'canon', right?"

After all, the books of the NT listed in the first chapter is a list of the books themselves as they were contained in the TR and not just a list of titles. Or am I missing something?


----------



## JohnGill

Jerusalem Blade said:


> 1 _Inquiry Into the Integrity Of the Greek Vulgate, Or Received Text Of the New Testament; in which the Greek Manuscripts are newly classed; the Integrity of the Authorised Text vindicated; and the Various Readings traced to their Origin_, by Fredrick Nolan ((London: F.C. and J. Rivington, 1815), pages 38, 39, 40, 41. Reprint available at Bible for Today ministry (see bibliography above). Nolan’s complete book online (save Preface): An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate
> 2 Ibid., pages 252-253.
> 3 Ibid., pages 254-255
> 4 Ibid., pages 291, 292, 293-305, 306.
> 5 Ibid., pages xvii, xviii.
> 6 Ibid., Footnote #1, pages xviii, xix.



At Google Books: An inquiry into the integrity of the ... - Google Book Search

At archive.org: Internet Archive: Details: An inquiry into the integrity of the Greek Vulgate : or, Received text of the New Testament ; in which the Greek manuscripts are newly classed, the integrity of the authorised text vindicated, and the various readings trace

The version at archive.org is searchable via the "Flip Book" option. Page 291 is leaf 322.


----------



## Archlute

KMK said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may not believe it is 'original' but, if you are going to subscribe to the WCF, then you must accept it as 'canon'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> I accept, along with the first chapter the WCF, that the first epistle of John is canonical, but there is no similar requirement of holding to the comma itself. No Presbyterian body of which I am aware requires subscription to the proof-texts of the standards, of which there have been variations throughout its history.
> 
> I find it kind of presumptuous for a Baptist pastor to be lecturing a Presbyterian ordinand regarding the subscription requirements of his own denomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I apologize. I would not presume to lecture a man of your stature. After reading my post again, I see how it might have sounded like a lecture.
> 
> How about if I rephrase it thusly: "As a subscriber to the WCF, you may believe it is not 'original', but you must believe it to be 'canon', right?"
> 
> After all, the books of the NT listed in the first chapter is a list of the books themselves as they were contained in the TR and not just a list of titles. Or am I missing something?
Click to expand...


I think that your understanding of canon is throwing you off. The books of Scripture listed in the WCF have been deemed canonical by the church, but nobody has sat down with every variant within those books (and I would add that these variants have been known to have been in existence long before the work of modern textual critics) and made a pronouncement as to which of the several renderings given is to be considered the "canonical" reading. Leave that up to the Magesterium. 

Canon, as understood by historic Protestantism, has been first determined by God, and only secondarily recognized by the church; not determined by the church. So if the church has thought that a passage within a book recognized to be canonical was original, and then later decides that the variant has weak support in light of later manuscript study, they are only recognizing that they had previously misread a particular passage to be original that was not original. The Canon is fixed and set by the work of the Spirit as found in the autographa, and the job of the church is to discern that. However, since we do not have councils to do that work, it falls upon the shoulders of most ministers to make a decision on those passages prior to preaching or teaching them. For what it's worth, most variants have no real impact upon a passage, and it is only the few such as the ending of Mark, or the "Johannine Comma" that ever really raise a stir.

A good place to begin reading on this issue can be found in chapter 1, section 4 of H. Ridderbos' _Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures_. Section 4 specifically deals with the Reformed view of the canon, but the entire book is worth a good read as well. It's only about 80pp long, and about six or seven bucks. Look into it. 

BTW, you can take your latte, and go do your obeisance elsewhere


----------



## py3ak

[Moderator]*People, let's act like courteous individuals.*[/Moderator]


----------



## KMK

Archlute said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> I accept, along with the first chapter the WCF, that the first epistle of John is canonical, but there is no similar requirement of holding to the comma itself. No Presbyterian body of which I am aware requires subscription to the proof-texts of the standards, of which there have been variations throughout its history.
> 
> I find it kind of presumptuous for a Baptist pastor to be lecturing a Presbyterian ordinand regarding the subscription requirements of his own denomination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I apologize. I would not presume to lecture a man of your stature. After reading my post again, I see how it might have sounded like a lecture.
> 
> How about if I rephrase it thusly: "As a subscriber to the WCF, you may believe it is not 'original', but you must believe it to be 'canon', right?"
> 
> After all, the books of the NT listed in the first chapter is a list of the books themselves as they were contained in the TR and not just a list of titles. Or am I missing something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that your understanding of canon is throwing you off. The books of Scripture listed in the WCF have been deemed canonical by the church, but nobody has sat down with every variant within those books (and I would add that these variants have been known to have been in existence long before the work of modern textual critics) and made a pronouncement as to which of the several renderings given is to be considered the "canonical" reading. Leave that up to the Magesterium.
> 
> Canon, as understood by historic Protestantism, has been first determined by God, and only secondarily recognized by the church; not determined by the church. So if the church has thought that a passage within a book recognized to be canonical was original, and then later decides that the variant has weak support in light of later manuscript study, they are only recognizing that they had previously misread a particular passage to be original that was not original. The Canon is fixed and set by the work of the Spirit as found in the autographa, and the job of the church is to discern that. However, since we do not have councils to do that work, it falls upon the shoulders of most ministers to make a decision on those passages prior to preaching or teaching them. For what it's worth, most variants have no real impact upon a passage, and it is only the few such as the ending of Mark, or the "Johannine Comma" that ever really raise a stir.
> 
> A good place to begin reading on this issue can be found in chapter 1, section 4 of H. Ridderbos' _Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures_. Section 4 specifically deals with the Reformed view of the canon, but the entire book is worth a good read as well. It's only about 80pp long, and about six or seven bucks. Look into it.
> 
> BTW, you can take your latte, and go do your obeisance elsewhere
Click to expand...


Thank you for the tip! I ordered my copy today.


----------



## shackleton

When I was a "Oneness Pentecostal" this text was used as proof that God was _not_ a Trinity because it ends with, "...and these three are one."


----------



## Poimen

I hope the following paper helps the discussion along (criticism and corrections are welcomed). It is a response to “A DEFENCE OF THE JOHANNINE COMMA” found here.

First of all, the paper is full of conjecture and speculation. I cannot count how many times the author guesses at the truth or facts instead of actually asserting an argument. Words like ‘plausible’ ‘in the very least’ ‘seems’ ‘likely’ ‘possible’ ‘circumstantial’ ‘suggested’ and the like would only be appropriate if he meant to show the possibility of the Comma being authentic, but his very thesis statement belies that fact: “The intention of this essay is to demonstrate to the reader the authenticity of the Johannine Comma through textual, historical, grammatical, and logical means.” (page 3) In his very qualifications, therefore, he disproves his original goal. 

Second, his understanding of the transmission of the original manuscripts to our modern versions is poor, if not outlandish. “Preservation of scripture does not demand that every reading be preserved, such as the Comma was in the Old Latin/Vulgate Latin and Waldensian vernaculars which were based off the Old Latin.” (page 8) “its preservation through means other than the Greek witness in no wise disparages or dilutes the principle and doctrine of the preservation of God’s Word.” (page 23) This is problematic because the Reformers cried “ad fontes”: back to the sources! The scriptures had become corrupted through the generations and Luther and others went back to the Greek and Hebrew to demystify the interpretations and translations that obscured their meaning. One famous example is that of Matthew 3:2. There we read “And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” But the Vulgate read “Do penance…” which established the Roman Catholic doctrine of supererogatory works. Luther rightly translated (from the original Greek and not the Latin of the Vulgate) John the Baptist as saying ‘Repent.’ (Note that the apocryphal books also came into the canon through the Vulgate). 

Thus we cannot begin to assert that the translations of the scriptures are of equal weight with the original (Hebrew or Greek) autographs otherwise we open ourselves to a whole host of errors. The preservation of the originals through translations is important but should not supercede the original language in which they were written. God chose the Hebrew and Greek languages (the common tongues of the day) to communicate His message to man. Thus we must submit ourselves to those tongues as the primary, if not exclusive, method of determining the wording of the OT and NT. And, as an aside, it is a well established fact that scribes were more willing to add to the scriptures than take away. It is, of course, illegitimate to not only take away but also add to what the original says (Deuteronomy 4:2). 

Third, the author continues to use _ad hominem_ arguments (attacking the person not the teaching) and prejudices the minds of his readers against those who do not believe that the Comma is inspired since he constantly associates such an understanding with Muslims, liberals, and outright heretics. (such as pages 1-2). The problem with this, other than being an unsubstantiated accusation, leads the reader to think that anyone who thinks other than himself must have some ulterior theological motivation. However the reality is that there are places in the NT where the so called ‘eclectic’ text is actually more orthodox than the Received. In John 1:18, for example, the KJV reads the “only begotten son” whereas the older Greek text reads “the only begotten God.” The latter version, it could be argued, is more Trinitarian than the first, since it speaks of the Son as being God and not just a son. One could cast aspersions on the KJV’s stand on orthodoxy as a result. But the point here is not that one is more correct than the other but only to demonstrate that the reason that the reading of “the son” does not take away from the orthodoxy of the KJV nor call into question the theology of its writers, anymore than not including 1 John 5:7 in the Bible because one holds to a different textual tradition makes someone a heretic or liberal. 

Fourth, the author shoots himself in the foot many times by agreeing with evidence cited by textual critics against the Comma. He notes that the Byzantine text-type, upon which the Textus Receptus mainly relies and in his own admission “forms the vast majority of the Greek texts,” does not contain the Comma. (page 7) His answer is to postulate something which cannot be proven: that it was removed by heretics who wanted to expunge this Trinitarian reference. The words and statements that follow such as ‘in the very least’ ‘likely’ ‘very well possible’ and the like do not help his case because they show, once again, that he is basing his conclusion(s) on pure conjecture. 

Besides if we follow that reasoning to its logical end, why wasn’t John 1:1 removed, or many other verses that testify to the deity of our Lord (not to mention 1 John 5:20 which is in the same book!)? By way of comparison, Jehovah’s Witnesses have deliberately corrupted the original in their translation by removing or adding words (the latter being much more common even in ancient times) to fit their theology. They are aware of many more verses than 1 John 5:7 which demonstrate the deity of our Lord, and thus have suited their Bible to their ‘taste.’ 

Furthermore he admits that the “earliest existing Vulgate manuscript dating from 546 AD does not contain this verse” (page 11), that the Syriac versions do not all contain it. This all damages his claim to the Comma’s authenticity. Even stranger than these admissions is the fact that the Greek Church Fathers did not reference this verse in dealing with their anti-Trinitarian opponents. Surely somewhere along the line one of them would have quoted or cited it and yet they didn’t. 

Fifth, I will deal with his citation of several church fathers which he claims acknowledge or actually quote from the Comma. I think his strongest argument is found on page 6 where he quotes from Jerome who noted that the testimony was left out of the Greek codices by “irresponsible translators.” However what does it mean that ‘translators’ left it out “in the Greek codices”? The task of a translator is to take one language and convert it into the other. We are left with the impression the Latin is being translated into the Greek, so that it was not the original Greek that had this statement but the Latin. I may be wrong about this but that’s the impression I get from this sentence. Furthermore the context is not provided unlike many of the author’s quotations. We have no idea to what Jerome is referring to in the original, nor if it is the verse in its entirety or simply the Comma. We have no way of knowing. Coupled with evidence provided in the paragraph above concerning the earliest copy of the Vulgate not containing the Comma this makes the author’s claim very weak.

The author also states that the Old Latin version, dating from the middle of 2nd century, contains the Comma (page 10). Yet we are not told if these are copies or the originals. Furthermore he states the African Old Latin tradition does not exist outside of quotations from the church fathers. 

He moves onto an argument about the Waldensians and their preservation of the original scriptures. To be quite frank, I studied the Waldensians in university and even wrote a paper on them. Many people confused them with heretics (Albigensians and other crypto-Gnostic groups). They were all thought to descend from heresies of a similar kind (such as the Donatists); separatists of every stripe. But I don’t see in the research how they stretched back into the Roman era in regards to their existence but their teaching definitely bore similarities to past groups. In any case, this again, is conjecture as he says it is “certainly plausible” (page 12) but not obviously true. 

On page 16 the case of Athenagorus is brought forth to state that his “language certainly seems to reflect a knowledge and use of the verse as part of his explanation on the Trinity.” (page 16) That it is not ‘likely’ (page 17) that he had this verse in mind when he wrote these statements is evident by the fact that he simply would have referred to it if that was the case. Again, as we stated above, the Greek fathers, of whom Athenagorus is one, do not quote or cite this verse directly even when dealing with the anti-Trinitarian heretics. They do not know of its existence. If they had, then Athenagorus certainly would have openly stated the content thereof in the context of defending the doctrine of the Trinity. 

Similarly, Tertullian is said to have referred to this verse in a work that was written to defend the Trinity. Note however that the quote does not say Father, Word and Paraclete (as per the KJV text) but Father, Son and Paraclete. If he was aware of the Comma why didn’t he cite it properly? And if he knew about that verse why didn’t he cite it directly in a defense of the doctrine of the Trinity instead, as the author suggests, allude to it? 

The author also quotes from Cyprian for support. You will note from his quotation (page 18) that the statement “it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit…” is actually not part of the quote from Cyprian. The portion ‘And these three are one’ is but not the latter. This is instructive because the reference to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are precisely the debated portion of this text. No one debates that the original Greek contains the phrase “these three are one” (at least in vs. 8) but the debate lies over to what that refers and whether or not the Comma is an addition to the original text. Furthermore, Cyprian says “Father, Son” not ‘Father, Word’ as in the original. Again, this is a misquotation which leads me to believe that Cyprian, like Tertullian, is interpreting this passage instead of simply citing what it actually says. 

Finally, citing Augustine and Gregory to prove his point only weakens his arguments because Augustine never quotes directly from the passage and Gregory never cites it at all. In reference to Gregory’s discussion of the grammar rule that “Greek grammar demands gender agreement among parts of a sentence” is valid, (page 21) but not infallible. In Ephesians 2:8 we read “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.” The question for us is what is “that”? In the Greek ‘that’ is neuter but there is no corresponding neuter in the context to know directly to what Paul is referring. This has led Reformed commentators to suggest that “that” is actually referring to both nouns in the preceding statement: ‘grace’ and ‘faith’ both of which are in the feminine case. It is not true, therefore, that all pronouns must correspond in case with their antecedent. And on top of that, he manufactures a reason for why Gregory did not know and cite directly from the Comma, which again cannot be proven and, as we have seen, has problems of its own. 

In conclusion, faced with the evidence he cites I think another postulation could be made, one that is just as convincing as or even more than the one the author puts forth: could it not be that this statement was added because of the increasing attacks on the teaching of the Church concerning the doctrine of the Trinity? As we noted earlier, textual tradition teaches us that scribes were more likely to add to the Bible than take away from it. Yet even if we do not find this hypothesis convincing, his argument is poorly reasoned and simply contrived. If anything, the evidence that he offers only convinced me even more of my opinion.


----------



## JM

[video=youtube;XGm4U0xZcAc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGm4U0xZcAc[/video]

What is and is not scripture?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Whatever Erasmus' motives were in including 1 John 5:7 (and I am still researching those motives) into the NT Text, the overriding issue is the sovereignty of God in preserving this passage in the Reformation Text.

We can see from the lengthy quote of John Gill above, that Gill said, “...out of sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephens’, nine of them had it”. Evidently none of these have survived, but we do have this testimony.

The stance the Reformers took vis-à-vis Rome was they had the _providentially preserved_ Scripture, and this was their bulwark against the claims of the Papacy, and the Reformers defended this text they had in hand. 

Concerning the variants, Dr. Theodore P. Letis showed we can see that John Owen (and perhaps Turretin) owned possible minute variants within the TR editions, and their view was that God had allowed them:

This is from Letis’ _The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate_:

Owen saw only the minor variants between the various editions of TR as valid areas for discrimination, staying within the broad parameters of providential preservation, as exemplified by “Erasmus, Stephen, Beza, Arias Montanus, and some others.” Within the confines of these editions was “the first and most honest course fixed on” for “consulting various copies and comparing them among themselves.”

This is both the concrete domain of the providentially preserved text, as well as the only area for legitimate comparisons to choose readings among the minutiae of differences. In fact, “God by His Providence preserving the whole entire; suffered this lesser variety [within the providentially preserved editions of the TR –TPL] to fall out, in or among the copies we have, for the quickening and exercising of our diligence in our search into His Word [for ascertaining the finality of preservation among the minutiae of differences among the TR editions –TPL] (_The Divine Original_, p. 301)* It is the activity, editions, and variants after this period of stabilization that represent illegitimate activity, or, as Owen says, “another way.”

Thus Owen maintained an absolute providential preservation while granting variants. (“John Owen _Versus_ Brian Walton” fn 30, p. 160)​
* Owen’s _Divine Original_ online: DIVINE ORIGINAL, AUTHORITY, SELF-EVIDENCING LIGHT, AND POWER OF THE SCRIPTURES. This is from volume 16 of Owen’s works.

I recently came across an important contribution to this issue of the Textus Receptus (particularly the 1894 of Scrivener) by Will Kinney, in an online article he wrote called, ”Tyndale, the Textus Receptus or the King James Bible?” We do not have the exact manuscripts the translators of the AV 1611 used – the Greek, other language versions, other English versions – and we do not have notes as to the reasons they made what choices they did, I believe because of one of the great London fires, which destroyed such records. What we have is the English version the Lord providentially brought into existence, from the Greek and other mss He provided the Reformation editors and the KJV translators. The Scrivener 1894 TR is but a back-translated Greek text from the English of the AV. We really don’t have a Greek text that is perfect and which we can call “exact”, although by the method of John Owen (noted above) he arrived at “an absolute providential preservation while granting variants”.

Is this not – what Owen referred to – the Greek spoken of in the WCF 1:8?

The Confession at 1:8 reads (in part):

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical...​
The Greek editions of the Reformation Textus Receptus contained 1 John 5:7. This was not a variant issue for them, as perhaps Romans 7:6 was.

The long and short of all this is: we have, amazingly, the English rendition of the Word of God preserved and prepared for His post-Reformation church. I will hold to it.

I will abide by their wisdom in refusing the Vatican manuscripts with their variants, as these were the weapons of Rome against the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. And they still are.


----------



## SolaScriptura

JM said:


> YouTube - Shabir Ally on Tenacity
> 
> What is and is not scripture?



Hmmm... not sure I would have cited a Muslim scholar to ask the question. The KJVists are bound to latch on to this and say, "See! Once you abandon the KVJ you're heading destroy the Christian faith and you'll eventually become a Muslim!"


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

_I'm_ not bound to do that. Rather, I'd say the guy has a point. I have long said that the critics of our faith — and the Word of God as the foundation of it — will latch on to these "textual discrepancies" like bulldogs, as there is the vulnerable underbelly of these editions of Scripture. I for one cannot find a defense for such.

Jason, do you have Dr. White's reply to him?


----------



## JM

Sorry brother, I do not, but did find this :

[video=youtube;dwR3oyRzVIg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwR3oyRzVIg&feature=PlayList&p=C7D628ED9A0416B3&index=10[/video]

I have noticed that 1 John 5:7 has been a verse Muslims like to site as a clear corruption of the text, that "if this was added to prove the Trinity" they ask, "what other scriptures were added to prove the Trinity?"

j
PS: I know the Qur'an is riddled with textual problems.


----------



## Grymir

"See! Once you abandon the KVJ you're heading destroy the Christian faith and you'll eventually become a Muslim!"


----------



## Grymir

I just had to do that. I've really basically said that you have a Bible that isn't fit to study seriously.

Alot of people have posted great stuff above, far more scholarly than I could do. One of the biggest facts that made me a believer of the Johannine Comma was how far back in history it goes.


----------



## JM

What else should be removed or not considered scripture?


----------



## Grymir

Depends on who's asking; Liberals, Mormans, or Muslims?


----------



## JM

Grymir said:


> Depends on who's asking; Liberals, Mormans, or Muslims?



I'm asking confessional Christians.


----------



## Grymir

Hmm. I'm a real KJV user (as opposed to the ruckman type). I take the bible as it stands. All of the questionable passages in the whole Bible would fill 1/2 of one page. I've heard all the reasons the moderns feel some passages should be taken out, but after doing a little research, they all should remain in the Bible. The stuff used against the Johnannine Comma is simmilar to the other passage arguements. 

One of the best research things I do is to trace the history and go back to the begining. Modern scholars try and figure out the order in which the Gospels were written, and yet, if you read early church fathers, they spell it out clearly. I go with what they say.


----------



## DMcFadden

Bart Ehrman is one very interesting man. 

A graduate of Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College, he studied textual criticism under the leading light in America on the subject, Bruce Metzger. In fact, Metzger’s textbook on textual criticism—_The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration_—has been revised and published with Ehrman as co-author (4th edition) and is likely to remain as the standard for all aspiring textual-critical students. 

His _Misquoting Jesus_ introduction to textual criticism can't help but explain why textual criticism makes a high view of Scripture untenable. 

In his 'testimony' Ehrman says (p. 7):


> I kept reverting to my basic question: how does it help us to say that the Bible is the inerrant word of God if in fact we don't have the words that God inerrantly inspired, but only the words copied by the scribes—sometimes correctly but sometimes (many times!) incorrectly? What good is it to say that the autographs (i.e., the originals) were inspired? We don't have the originals! We have only error-ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways.



The idea of "error ridden copies" continues when you get into the substance of the book.


> The more I studied the manuscript tradition of the New Testament, the more I realized just how radically the text had been altered over the years at the hands of scribes, who were not only conserving scripture but also changing it. (p. 207)



The not-at-all subtle point that Ehrman keeps making is the notion that the scribes changed the book so how can you trust it as the word of God?



> When I was a student just beginning to think about those fifteen centuries of copying and the vicissitudes of the text, I kept reverting to the fact that whatever else we may say about the Christian scribes—whether of the early centuries or of the Middle Ages—we have to admit that in addition to copying scripture, they were changing scripture. Sometimes they didn't mean to—they were simply tired, or inattentive, or, on occasion, inept. At other times, though, they did mean to make changes, as when they wanted the text to emphasize precisely what they themselves believed, for example about the nature of Christ, or about the role of women in the church, or about the wicked character of their Jewish opponents. This conviction that scribes had changed scripture became an increasing certitude for me as I studied the text more and more. (p. 210)



If God did "inspire" the autographs, so what since we don't have them?



> As I realized already in graduate school, even if God had inspired the original words, we don't have the original words. So the doctrine of inspiration was in a sense irrelevant to the Bible as we have it, since the words God reputedly inspired had been changed and, in some cases, lost. (p. 211)



And, in a book that uses the Johannine Comma as his case in point, Ehrman brings it all home with this line of reasoning on the implications for preservation.



> ... the only reason (I came to think) for God to inspire the Bible would be so that his people would have his actual words; but if he really wanted people to have his actual words, surely he would have miraculously preserved those words, just as he had miraculously inspired them in the first place. Given the circumstance that he didn't preserve the words, the conclusion seemed inescapable to me that he hadn't gone to the trouble of inspiring them. (p. 211)



Regardless of the side you come out on with regard to CT vs. TR, this is where the rubber meets the road for me. My concern is for the implications of textual criticism for our doctrine of Scripture, especially our idea of preservation. Yes, I know the standard answers to Ehrman and his ilk. But, it is still problematical in that because of our debtes over the text, it keeps coming up, raised by Ehrman, a pimple faced college student, or a Muslim apologist. 

[That's why I asked a couple of weeks ago if any of you had read Moises Silva's piece on a Reformed view of textual criticism. It would seem that he might have something to say that would be valuable for us. Anyone? Anyone?]


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Dennis,

Is Silva's piece, _Biblical Greek and Reformed Textual Criticism_, available anywhere in digital format? I see it is available in photocopy at WTS bookstore, but is it online? Thanks,

Steve


----------



## Archlute

Grymir said:


> Hmm. I'm a real KJV user (as opposed to the ruckman type). *I take the bible as it stands.* All of the questionable passages in the whole Bible would fill 1/2 of one page. I've heard all the reasons the moderns feel some passages should be taken out, but after doing a little research, they all should remain in the Bible. The stuff used against the Johnannine Comma is simmilar to the other passage arguements.
> 
> One of the best research things I do is to trace the history and go back to the begining. Modern scholars try and figure out the order in which the Gospels were written, and yet, if you read early church fathers, they spell it out clearly. I go with what they say.




But isn't that the real question here? The Bible as it stood in 1611, or as it stood in one of the 4th century codices, or the reading of Paul's Philippian epistle as found in a second century papyrus?

What is most important to me is discerning the original reading of the passage; that is where the power is, because that is where God's word is. A traditional reading strongly held, though not of the original, is not part of God's word, and therefore is not worthy of preaching upon.

I do my textual criticism (which has always been distinguished from "higher-criticism, although it seems as if people here would like to lump the two together as far as moral culpability), because I love the Word of God's Spirit. There are a ton of variants among the thousands of mss that have been collected; the majority of the variants are superficial (changes in orthography, or a change in grammatical style to match the Greek as understood by the copyist's era), and have no real affect upon the understanding of the text, but some of them do, and it is important to me to weigh the issue as part of my ministerial responsibility before the people of God, and to make a well-studied decision. 

When I see that there is a significant difference between a number of 2nd/3rd century papyri, and a reading as contained in the Received Text, what should I do? Should I ignore significant early evidence for a better reading, or should just hang with tradition on some superficial notion that there has always been one preserved Word for God's people at all times (and hope that the TR is it)? How does that doctrine of preservation fit when you look at the Christians of the 5th century and one particular codex that they may have had as their only Scripture? Did God fail to preserve his Word for them where it varies from the TR? What about a Christian village during the Medieval era, whose priest had only a 13th century minuscule from which to preach (yes, preaching went on even back then, even with priests and preaching orders) - did God fail to preserve His Word to them where that minuscule varies from the TR?

This is why textual criticism is done: not to undermine the authority of the Word of God, but to better establish it. This is especially true when faced with variant readings from hundreds and hundreds of manuscripts, especially when there is a consistent reading among earlier mss that makes better sense of the passage, and has the better testimony to being the original than the few, late mss that make up the TR.

For what it's worth, I think that textual criticism among NT scholars is a much more responsibly practiced endeavor than that which you will find among OT text critics. The textual notes found in the UBS 4th edition/NA 27th edition are quite helpful and clear, and contain none of the editorial speculation that is found in the 4th edition of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia.


----------



## Archlute

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Dennis,
> 
> Is Silva's piece, _Biblical Greek and Reformed Textual Criticism_, available anywhere in digital format? I see it is available in photocopy at WTS bookstore, but is it online? Thanks,
> 
> Steve



Ditto. I've read a good number of things by Silva, but have not heard of this work. I'd like to check it out. However, having used his commentary on Philippians, I can tell you that he practices good textual criticism in his exegesis just like the rest of us.


----------



## DMcFadden

I broke down and ordered the book from WTS tonight. It is a photocopy (either of an out of print book or lecture notes from his WTS days). Moises was one of my NT profs in college in the early 70s and my wife had 2 yrs of Greek from him before he went to WTS to teach (after which he went to Gordon Conwell). He has always struck me as an unusually level headed exegete with a solid Reformed rep. What he says about textual criticism should be quite helpful on point to the discussions we have been having here. When it comes, I will try to do a post bringing us up to date. I checked with Lane who said that Moises had already left WTS when he was a student there, so he hadn't read it either (one more reason to shake my head at how old I've gotten and how young some of you theologs really are!).

Adam, like most of us who went through any seminary experience, I share your practice of NT (as well as your comment about the tendencies of BHS) Textual Criticism. However, evidently unlike you, my education never gave the time of day to alternative views and arguments. Hence, my desire to reconsider the issue now. With Bart Ehrman's running around using the CT as proof that the Bible cannot be inspired, it certainly would be "nice" if the TR guys were right after all about the Byzantine tradition providentially preserving the Word of God.

However, that would still not solve the problem of the Johannine Comma. One could be a Byzantine Text person and still dispute the validity of 1 John 5:7 on the grounds that it is missing from most Byzantine mss. Only a KJV person who argued that providential preservation extends to the particular texts used by the KJV translators (regardless of the true story of Erasmus' reasons for putting it into his 3rd edition) would have a final explanation of the infamous "Comma."


----------



## Grymir

Archlute said:


> Grymir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm. I'm a real KJV user (as opposed to the ruckman type). *I take the bible as it stands.* All of the questionable passages in the whole Bible would fill 1/2 of one page. I've heard all the reasons the moderns feel some passages should be taken out, but after doing a little research, they all should remain in the Bible. The stuff used against the Johnannine Comma is simmilar to the other passage arguements.
> 
> One of the best research things I do is to trace the history and go back to the begining. Modern scholars try and figure out the order in which the Gospels were written, and yet, if you read early church fathers, they spell it out clearly. I go with what they say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But isn't that the real question here? The Bible as it stood in 1611, or as it stood in one of the 4th century codices, or the reading of Paul's Philippian epistle as found in a second century papyrus?
Click to expand...


But that's just it, the KJV matchs the early stuff, that's why I said I take it as it stands. The newer versions don't match the early stuff as well.



Archlute said:


> When I see that there is a significant difference between a number of 2nd/3rd century papyri, and a reading as contained in the Received Text, what should I do? Should I ignore significant early evidence for a better reading, or should just hang with tradition on some superficial notion that there has always been one preserved Word for God's people at all times (and hope that the TR is it)? How does that doctrine of preservation fit when you look at the Christians of the 5th century and one particular codex that they may have had as their only Scripture? Did God fail to preserve his Word for them where it varies from the TR? What about a Christian village during the Medieval era, whose priest had only a 13th century minuscule from which to preach (yes, preaching went on even back then, even with priests and preaching orders) - did God fail to preserve His Word to them where that minuscule varies from the TR?



According to this paragraph, there was a time in the 5th century that there was only one copy of the Bible? There were many copies. The KJV also reads the closest to 2nd/3rd century texts, especially as quoted by the church fathers than the modern copies do. This whole paragraph seems out of phase with what I was/am saying, because I didn't say anything about the doctrine of preservation, nor anything about the TR. Plus I know that preaching went back much further than the 13th century. Also, were not the miniscules usually hand written copies from codexes, and not worth as much as a major codex?


----------



## MW

Suppose, for the sake of the argument, 1 John 5:7 is not original. How does one set about to prove the confessional statement that in the unity of the Godhead there are three persons? Note, it does not merely say that there is one God. Rather, it specifically teaches the numerical and essential unity of the three persons of the Godhead. I quote from Thomas Boston (Works, 1:145) to show how this is explicitly established on the basis of 1 John 5:7; but remove this text from the canon of Scripture and it appears to me that it can only be proved that God is one and God is three, not that there are three persons in the unity of the Godhead.



> How express the text is, _These three are one_. When the apostle speaks of the unity of the earthly witnesses, ver. 8. he says, they "agree in one," acting in unity of consent or agreement only. But the heavenly witnesses are _one_, viz. in nature or essence. They are not only of a like nature or substance, but one and the same substance; and if so, they are and must be equal in all essential perfections, as power and glory.


----------



## DMcFadden

Adam,



> I do my textual criticism (which has always been distinguished from "higher-criticism, although it seems as if people here would like to lump the two together as far as moral culpability), because I love the Word of God's Spirit. There are a ton of variants among the thousands of mss that have been collected; the majority of the variants are superficial (changes in orthography, or a change in grammatical style to match the Greek as understood by the copyist's era), and have no real affect upon the understanding of the text, but some of them do, and it is important to me to weigh the issue as part of my ministerial responsibility before the people of God, and to make a well-studied decision.



As a presuppositionalist, I look at the "facts" with a different point of view than in former days. Nobody (in their right mind) should dispute the need for textual criticism. For, as everyone admits, there are lots of manuscripts and quite a few variants. The rub comes in how we interpret those facts. "Earlier is better" is a pretty good rule of thumb. However, if the "earlier" has a provenance in a community of heretics, does that make it better than a manuscript that hails from a later period, but comes from a line of orthodox Christians? Again, people like Dan Wallace and Ben Witherington have given powerful answers to Ehrman (after all Witherington was ALSO a student of Metzger at one time). Still, exploiting the reality of variants to discredit inerrance (or even inspiration) will be a ever-present problem. And, suggesting that agnostics like Ehrman may have an ideological ax to grind in how they sift, weigh, and present the "facts" is the problem, isn't it?


----------



## Archlute

Grymir said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grymir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm. I'm a real KJV user (as opposed to the ruckman type). *I take the bible as it stands.* All of the questionable passages in the whole Bible would fill 1/2 of one page. I've heard all the reasons the moderns feel some passages should be taken out, but after doing a little research, they all should remain in the Bible. The stuff used against the Johnannine Comma is simmilar to the other passage arguements.
> 
> One of the best research things I do is to trace the history and go back to the begining. Modern scholars try and figure out the order in which the Gospels were written, and yet, if you read early church fathers, they spell it out clearly. I go with what they say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But isn't that the real question here? The Bible as it stood in 1611, or as it stood in one of the 4th century codices, or the reading of Paul's Philippian epistle as found in a second century papyrus?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's just it, the KJV matchs the early stuff, that's why I said I take it as it stands. The newer versions don't match the early stuff as well.
Click to expand...


That is a pretty broad statement to make. Does it really match "the early stuff" as closely as you say? What copies among "the early stuff" does it match, because even the early copies have variants among themselves?



Grymir said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I see that there is a significant difference between a number of 2nd/3rd century papyri, and a reading as contained in the Received Text, what should I do? Should I ignore significant early evidence for a better reading, or should just hang with tradition on some superficial notion that there has always been one preserved Word for God's people at all times (and hope that the TR is it)? How does that doctrine of preservation fit when you look at the Christians of the 5th century and one particular codex that they may have had as their only Scripture? Did God fail to preserve his Word for them where it varies from the TR? What about a Christian village during the Medieval era, whose priest had only a 13th century minuscule from which to preach (yes, preaching went on even back then, even with priests and preaching orders) - did God fail to preserve His Word to them where that minuscule varies from the TR?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to this paragraph, there was a time in the 5th century that there was only one copy of the Bible? There were many copies. The KJV also reads the closest to 2nd/3rd century texts, especially as quoted by the church fathers than the modern copies do. This whole paragraph seems out of phase with what I was/am saying, because I didn't say anything about the doctrine of preservation, nor anything about the TR. Plus I know that preaching went back much further than the 13th century. Also, were not the miniscules usually hand written copies from codexes, and not worth as much as a major codex?
Click to expand...


Do you really think that I would believe there to have been only "one copy of the Bible" in the 5th century? What I was getting at is the problem that you have regarding a doctrine of preservation (which is one of the central arguments put forth by many of the KJV/TR advocates, although you yourself may not hold to it) where you have one Christian community living in the 5th century with one codex, and a second Christian community in a different part of the ancient world living with another codex that has differences between it and the codex held by the first community. That reality raises the question as to the validity of a doctrine of preservation, especially since the assumption is often that the true church held the true copy (certainly we couldn't have had the RCC with the preserved word, while those faithful Waldensians were running around in the woods with some hack copy). Which of the various codices preserved the "one true form" of the Word of God? Would one community have been blessed with the preserved Word of God, while the others (presumably less favored of God?) would have bibles with errors in them? What does a doctrine of preservation do with the fact that _NONE_ of the early papyri/codices are exactly identical to the TR? Where is that exact copy of the Word to be found? I have no problem with saying the the Word has always been preserved in some form or another throughout the ages, but to cite Psalm 119:89, and then to assert that there is one, unvarnished copy of the autographa to be found in the true church (which just so happens to be what we have in our 1611's) is not only poor scholarship in general - it is also generally poor exegesis! This latter type of argumentation is probably more closely aligned with the "Ruckman" camp that you have distanced yourself from, but I have seen hints of its influence on this board.

I don't think that I'm going to be putting any further time into this thread for now. Have fun amongst yourselves.


----------



## Archlute

DMcFadden said:


> Adam,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do my textual criticism (which has always been distinguished from "higher-criticism, although it seems as if people here would like to lump the two together as far as moral culpability), because I love the Word of God's Spirit. There are a ton of variants among the thousands of mss that have been collected; the majority of the variants are superficial (changes in orthography, or a change in grammatical style to match the Greek as understood by the copyist's era), and have no real affect upon the understanding of the text, but some of them do, and it is important to me to weigh the issue as part of my ministerial responsibility before the people of God, and to make a well-studied decision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a presuppositionalist, I look at the "facts" with a different point of view than in former days. Nobody (in their right mind) should dispute the need for textual criticism. For, as everyone admits, there are lots of manuscripts and quite a few variants. The rub comes in how we interpret those facts. "Earlier is better" is a pretty good rule of thumb. However, if the "earlier" has a provenance in a community of heretics, does that make it better than a manuscript that hails from a later period, but comes from a line of orthodox Christians? Again, people like Dan Wallace and Ben Witherington have given powerful answers to Ehrman (after all Witherington was ALSO a student of Metzger at one time). Still, exploiting the reality of variants to discredit inerrance (or even inspiration) will be a ever-present problem. And, suggesting that agnostics like Ehrman may have an ideological ax to grind in how they sift, weigh, and present the "facts" is the problem, isn't it?
Click to expand...


That may be, but the true problem is not the reality of the variants (as I think we would agree), it is the problem of a heart of unbelief. Unbelief will latch onto whatever it can in an attempt to discredit the Scripture, and get God out of it's life. If the variants weren't there, Ehrman would have to go looking for something like supposed archaeological discrepancies to float his boat.

Btw, even though I am a firm believer in the necessity of textual criticism, I more often than not favor Byzantine readings. Metzger is not my homeboy, and I think that some of the reasoning that was used by that committee in reaching a few of their conclusions leaves much to be desired. 

Okay, that's my last post!


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Adam M. (Archlute) has brought up some very pertinent points (post #62), and they warrant a thoughtful response; he said:

What I was getting at is the problem that you have regarding a doctrine of preservation (which is one of the central arguments put forth by many of the KJV/TR advocates, although you yourself may not hold to it) where you have one Christian community living in the 5th century with one codex, and a second Christian community in a different part of the ancient world living with another codex that has differences between it and the codex held by the first community. That reality raises the question as to the validity of a doctrine of preservation, especially since the assumption is often that the true church held the true copy (certainly we couldn't have had the RCC with the preserved word, while those faithful Waldensians were running around in the woods with some hack copy). Which of the various codices preserved the "one true form" of the Word of God? Would one community have been blessed with the preserved Word of God, while the others (presumably less favored of God?) would have bibles with errors in them?​
One way to phrase the issue would be like this: “If only the Greek Byzantine was the providentially preserved text, what about the other locations in the world that had a different texttype -- did they not have an adequate Bible?”

And I would answer thus:

There is a preserving of the text, and then there is a preserving of the text—where its integrity is held even to minute readings not granted the former. That the former was nonetheless efficacious is analogous to the Bibles based upon the CT being efficacious to save and edify God’s people today, as witnessed by the multitudes regenerated through those who use the NIV, NASB, ESV etc. The _minute preservation_ occurred in the primary edition (KJV/TR) which was to serve the English-speaking people and the translations created for the vast missionary work they undertook, which impacted the entire world. There was a progression in the purifying of the text, so as to almost (some would say completely) perfectly reconstitute the original manuscripts of the apostles, even as there has been, in the area of theology, a restoration of apostolic doctrine, which also went through phases of deterioration and eventual renewal.

Thus, even those areas of the church which were non-Greek-speaking also had a “preserved text”—as do multitudes in this present day—though their texts were not “minutely preserved.” The texts they had were efficacious unto the salvation of souls and the sustaining of the churches. The distinction is between an _adequate_ preservation as distinguished from preservation in the minutiae.

As regarding the Lord’s promise to preserve His Scripture (Matt 24:35; Isaiah 59:21; etc), many times the people of God have not understood how a prophecy was to be fulfilled until it was a done thing, and then they looked backward to see how He had worked. It is thus in observing how He fulfilled His promise to preserve His word.

Adam asks this question,

What does a doctrine of preservation do with the fact that _NONE_ of the early papyri/codices are exactly identical to the TR?​
We distinguish between the early papyri and codices, and those later minuscules representing the Byzantine textform, yet even among these latter none are “exactly indentical”. What does this signify? It signifies that they were not slavishly copied from one parent document, but rather represent a united testimony from various quarters of the church and with different manuscript lineage, all nonetheless reflecting the ancient autographs (this historical aspect will be elaborated on in the following post).

Westcott and Hort concocted a theory to discredit this unanimity in testimony of 90% of the manuscripts – a supposed official edition produced by the church in Antioch, but it has never been supported by one shred of evidence, historical or otherwise – and has been rejected by text critics generally (not only the Majority Text and King James defenders), though the prejudices concerning certain readings, and the alleged superiority of the Westcott and Hort favorite MSS, B (Vaticanus) and [size=+1]a[/size] (Sinaiticus) doggedly remain, even though the theory that elevated them is no longer believed. As Van Bruggen pointed out in his, _The Ancient Text of the New Testament_, in the first section, "The Last Certainty of New Testament Textual Criticism",

Among all uncertainties of this 20th century, we, however, can point to one great, lasting _certainty_ in the modern textual criticism — a certainty that serves as starting point and keeps stimulating much conscientious work and constant research. One can even say that the modern textual criticism of the New Testament is based on the one fundamental conviction that the true text of the New Testament is at least not found in the great majority of the manuscripts. The text which the Greek church has read for more than 1000 years, and which the churches of the Reformation have followed for centuries in their Bible translations, is now with certainty regarded as defective and deficient: a text to be rejected. This negative certainty has grown in the 18th century since Mill, Bentley, Wettstein, Semler, and Griesbach. It has found expression in text‑editions of the 19th century. From the close of that century until now, it has become visible for the Bible‑reading community: in 1881 the Revised Version in England no longer followed the current Greek text and in the 20th century the same applies for new translations in other countries. The churches are becoming aware that the text of centuries is replaced by the text of yesterday: the Nestle text.

This rejection of the traditional text, that is the text preserved and handed down in the churches, is hardly written or thought about any more in the 20th century: it is a fait accompli. To hear the arguments for this rejection one must go back to the 19th century, back to the archives. Our century is accustomed to the disregard of the text that is indicated with names such as: Byzantine, Antiochene, Koine, Syrian, or Ecclesiastical. Already for more than 100 years the certainty that this type of text is inferior has been taken for granted. Yet certainty about a better, superior text‑type has failed to come during this long time. The heritage of the 19th century criticism was a solitary certainty — the certainty of the inferiority of this "traditional text". And it remains to be seen whether the 20th century will have a new, second certainty to offer as a heritage of its own.​
This confusion and uncertainty purports to hold forth the *differing* Biblical versions the churches should cleave to, and many souls are dismayed. Even godly, learned men and women defend this disparate textual testimony, and depreciate the older Ecclesiastical Text, thinking they are supporting progress and learning. Brilliant strategy of the enemy, sowing this discord concerning the true Biblical text!

This is what modern text critics say about the NT text:

“In spite of the claims of Westcott and Hort and of van Soden, we do not know the original form of the gospels, and it is quite likely that we never shall” (Kirsopp Lake, _Family 13, The Ferrar Group_, Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1941, p. vii).

“…it is generally recognized that the original text of the Bible cannot be recovered” (R.M. Grant. “The Bible of Theophilus of Antioch,” _Journal of Biblical Literature_, vol. 66, 1947, p. 173).

“…the optimism of the earlier editors has given way to that skepticisim which inclines towards regarding ‘the original text’ as an unattainable mirage” (G. Zuntz, _The Text of the Epistles_, 1953, p. 9).

“…every textual critic knows that this similarity of text indicates, rather, that we have made little progress in textual theory since Westcott-Hort; that we simply do not know how to make a definitive determination as to what the best text is; that we do not have a clear picture of the transmission and alternation of the text in the first few centuries; and accordingly, that the Westcott-Hort kind of text has maintained its dominant position largely by default” (Eldon J. Epp, “The Twentieth Century Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism,” _Journal of Biblical Literature_, Vol. 43, 1974, pp. 390-391).

“…we no longer think of Westcott-Hort’s ‘Neutral’ text as neutral; we no longer think of their ‘Western’ text as Western or as uniting the textual elements they selected; and, of course, we no longer think so simplistically or so confidently about recovering ‘the New Testament in the Original Greek.’…We remain largely in the dark as to how we might reconstruct the textual history that has left in its wake—in the form of MSS and fragments—numerous pieces of a puzzle that we seem incapable of fitting together. Westcott-Hort, von Soden, and others had sweeping theories (which we have largely rejected) to undergird their critical texts, but we seem now to have no such theories and no plausible sketches of the early history of the text that are widely accepted. What progress, then have we made? Are we more advanced than our predecessors when, after showing their theories to be unacceptable, we offer no such theories at all to vindicate our accepted text?” (Eldon J. Epp, “A Continuing Interlude in NT Textual Criticism,” _Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism_, (Eerdman’s, 1993), pp. 114, 115).​
What the AV defenders hold forth is a Bible the Lord preserved for His people. We do not believe the pessimism of the critics with their naturalistic methodologies. The Bible is a supernatural Book, as is our Faith in its entirety. Ours is not a counsel of despair! To restate some of our positions.

Maurice Robinson and Wm. Pierpont posited in their Introduction to _The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Byzantine / Majority Textform_,

A sound rational approach which accounts for all the phenomena and offers a reconstruction of the history of textual transmission is all that is demanded for any text-critical hypothesis. (p. xxxii)​
(I am aware that Messrs. Robinson and Pierpont would disown me as one of their illegitimate progeny [holding to the King James Bible as I do], as they make clear on their page xli, but I want to make clear I refuse to be under bondage to “the tyranny of experts,” to use Machen’s memorable phrase. I do not need the knowledge of “experts” who proceed according to methodologies I do not subscribe to. I will consider their work [as much as I am able] and use it if I please.)

We go a step further than the Byzantine / Majority Text folks go – though we are indebted to their excellent work! – and that is the step of faith in our Lord’s promise to providentially preserve His word. This post is long enough already, but I will append to the next one an account by another Majority Text proponent concerning the “reconstruction of the history of textual transmission” of the Traditional Text. I go to these lengths because Adam’s concerns about how we defend our position really deserves an answer.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

It has been rightly asked of us, In your view, what elevates the Reformation editors, and the texts used in the Reformation, over the early third and fourth century manuscripts that are Alexandrian? Were the Alexandrians not part of the church? Do you see the Alexandrian text-form as illegitimate?....On what basis do you say that the Alexandrian texts were rejected by the Reformed church? The manuscripts Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, for instance, were not discovered or known until the 19th century. Furthermore, you seem to be disenfranchising the Alexandrian church. Were they not part of the church? Did they not receive those texts when they were written?

These are good questions, and I would briefly like to respond by quoting from chapter 5 in Wilbur N. Pickering’s, _The Identity of the New Testament Text II_, where he talks about the history and factors involved concerning the copies made from the autographs. Please note that this later version of the book (the online version) is slightly different from the earlier hardcopy book:

*We have objective historical evidence in support of the following propositions:*


The true text was never "lost".


In A.D. 200 the exact original wording of the several books could still be verified and attested.


There was therefore no need to practice textual criticism and any such effort would be spurious.

However, presumably some areas would be in a better position to protect and transmit the true text than others.

[size=+1]*Who Was Best Qualified?*[/size]

What factors would be important for guaranteeing, or at least facilitating, a faithful transmission of the text of the N.T. writings? I submit that there are four controlling factors: access to the Autographs, proficiency in the source language, the strength of the Church and an appropriate attitude toward the Text.

*Access to the Autographs*

This criterion probably applied for less than a hundred years (the Autographs were presumably worn to a frazzle in that space of time) but it is highly significant to a proper understanding of the history of the transmission of the Text. Already by the year 100 there must have been many copies of the various books (some more than others) while it was certainly still possible to check a copy against the original, should a question arise. The point is that there was a swelling stream of faithfully executed copies emanating from the holders of the Autographs to the rest of the Christian world. In those early years the producers of copies would know that the true wording could be verified, which would discourage them from taking liberties with the text.

However, distance would presumably be a factor—for someone in north Africa to consult the Autograph of Ephesians would be an expensive proposition, in both time and money. I believe we may reasonably conclude that in general the quality of copies would be highest in the area surrounding the Autograph and would gradually deteriorate as the distance increased. Important geographical barriers would accentuate the tendency.

So who held the Autographs? Speaking in terms of regions, Asia Minor may be safely said to have had twelve (John, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Philemon, 1 Peter, 1 and 2 and 3 John, and Revelation), Greece may be safely said to have had six (1 and 2 Corinthians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and Titus in Crete), Rome may be safely said to have had two (Mark and Romans)—as to the rest, Luke, Acts, and 2 Peter were probably held by either Asia Minor or Rome; Matthew and James by either Asia Minor or Palestine; Hebrews by Rome or Palestine; while it is hard to state even a probability for Jude it was quite possibly held by Asia Minor. Taking Asia Minor and Greece together, the Aegean area held the Autographs of at least eighteen (two-thirds of the total) and possibly as many as twenty-four of the twenty-seven New Testament books; Rome held at least two and possibly up to seven; Palestine may have held up to three (but in A.D. 70 they would have been sent away for safe keeping, quite possibly to Antioch); Alexandria (Egypt) held *none.* The Aegean region clearly had the best start, and Alexandria the worst—the text in Egypt could only be second hand, at best. On the face of it, we may reasonably assume that in the earliest period of the transmission of the N.T. Text the most reliable copies would be circulating in the region that held the Autographs. Recalling the discussion of Tertullian above, I believe we may reasonably extend this conclusion to A.D. 200 and beyond. So, in the year 200 someone looking for the best text of the N.T. would presumably go to the Aegean area; certainly not to Egypt.

*Proficiency in the source language*

As a linguist (PhD) and one who has dabbled in the Bible translation process for some years, I affirm that a 'perfect' translation is impossible. (Indeed, a tolerably reasonable approximation is often difficult enough to achieve.) It follows that any divine solicitude for the precise form of the NT Text would have to be mediated through the language of the Autographs—Greek. Evidently ancient Versions (Syriac, Latin, Coptic) may cast a clear vote with reference to major variants, but precision is possible only in Greek (in the case of the N.T.). That by way of background, but our main concern here is with the copyists.

To copy a text by hand in a language you do not understand is a tedious exercise—it is almost impossible to produce a perfect copy (try it and see!). You virtually have to copy letter by letter and constantly check your place. (It is even more difficult if there is no space between words and no punctuation, as was the case with the N.T. Text in the early centuries.) But if you cannot understand the text it is very difficult to remain alert. Consider the case of P66. This papyrus manuscript is perhaps the oldest (c. 200) extant N.T. manuscript of any size (it contains most of John). It is one of the worst copies we have. It has an average of roughly two mistakes per verse—many being obvious mistakes, stupid mistakes, nonsensical mistakes. From the pattern of mistakes it is clear that the scribe copied syllable by syllable. I have no qualms in affirming that the person who produced P66 did not know Greek. Had he understood the text he would not have made the number and sort of mistakes that he did.

Now consider the problem from God's point of view. To whom should He entrust the primary responsibility for the faithful transmission of the N.T. Text? If the Holy Spirit is going to take an active part in the process, where should He concentrate His efforts? Presumably fluent speakers of Greek would have the inside track, and areas where Greek would continue in active use would be preferred. For a faithful transmission to occur the copyists had to be proficient in Greek, and over the long haul. So where was Greek predominant? Evidently in Greece and Asia Minor; Greek is the mother tongue of Greece to this day (having changed considerably during the intervening centuries, as any living language must). The dominance of Greek in the Aegean area was guaranteed by the Byzantine Empire for many centuries; in fact, until the invention of printing. Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453; the Gutenberg Bible (Latin) was printed just three years later, while the first printed Greek New Testament appeared in 1516. (For those who believe in Providence, I would suggest that here we have a powerful case in point.)

How about Egypt? The use of Greek in Egypt was already declining by the beginning of the Christian era. Bruce Metzger observes that the Hellenized section of the population in Egypt "was only a fraction in comparison with the number of native inhabitants who used only the Egyptian languages."[21] By the third century the decline was evidently well advanced. I have already argued that the copyist who did P66 (c. 200) did not know Greek. Now consider the case of P75 (c. 220). E.C. Colwell analyzed P75 and found about 145 itacisms plus 257 other singular readings, 25% of which are nonsensical. From the pattern of mistakes it is clear that the copyist who did P75 copied letter by letter![22] This means that he did not know Greek—when transcribing in a language you know you copy phrase by phrase, or at least word by word. K. Aland argues that before 200 the tide had begun to turn against the use of Greek in the areas that spoke Latin, Syriac or Coptic, and fifty years later the changeover to the local languages was well advanced.[23]

Again the Aegean Area is far and away the best qualified to transmit the Text with confidence and integrity. Note that even if Egypt had started out with a good text, already by the end of the 2nd century its competence to transmit the text was steadily deteriorating. In fact the early papyri (they come from Egypt) are demonstrably inferior in quality, taken individually, as well as exhibiting rather different types of text (they disagree among themselves).

*The strength of the Church*

This question is relevant to our discussion for two reasons. First, the law of supply and demand operates in the Church as well as elsewhere. Where there are many congregations and believers there will be an increased demand for copies of the Scriptures. Second, a strong, well established church will normally have a confident, experienced leadership—just the sort that would take an interest in the quality of their Scriptures and also be able to do something about it. So in what areas was the early Church strongest?

Although the Church evidently began in Jerusalem, the early persecutions and apostolic activity caused it to spread. The main line of advance seems to have been north into Asia Minor and west into Europe. If the selection of churches to receive the glorified Christ's "letters" (Rev. 2 and 3) is any guide, the center of gravity of the Church seems to have shifted from Palestine to Asia Minor by the end of the first century. (The destruction of Jerusalem by Rome's armies in A.D. 70 would presumably be a contributing factor.) Kurt Aland agrees with Adolf Harnack that "about 180 the greatest concentration of churches was in Asia Minor and along the Aegean coast of Greece." He continues: "The overall impression is that the concentration of Christianity was in the East. . . . Even around A.D. 325 the scene was still largely unchanged. Asia Minor continued to be the heartland of the Church."[24] "The heartland of the Church"—so who else would be in a better position to certify the correct text of the New Testament?

What about Egypt? C.H. Roberts, in a scholarly treatment of the Christian literary papyri of the first three centuries, seems to favor the conclusion that the Alexandrian church was weak and insignificant to the Greek Christian world in the second century.[25] Aland states: "Egypt was distinguished from other provinces of the Church, so far as we can judge, by the early dominance of gnosticism."[26] He further informs us that "at the close of the 2nd century" the Egyptian church was "dominantly gnostic" and then goes on to say: "The copies existing in the gnostic communities could not be used, because they were under suspicion of being corrupt."[27] Now this is all very instructive—what Aland is telling us, in other words, is that up to A.D. 200 the textual tradition in Egypt *could not be trusted.* Aland's assessment here is most probably correct. Notice what Bruce Metzger says about the early church in Egypt:

Among the Christian documents which during the second century either originated in Egypt or circulated there among both the orthodox and the Gnostics are numerous apocryphal gospels, acts, epistles, and apocalypses. . . . There are also fragments of exegetical and dogmatic works composed by Alexandrian Christians, chiefly Gnostics, during the second century. . . . In fact, to judge by the comments made by Clement of Alexandria, almost every deviant Christian sect was represented in Egypt during the second century; Clement mentions the Valentinians, the Basilidians, the Marcionites, the Peratae, the Encratites, the Docetists, the Haimetites, the Cainites, the Ophites, the Simonians, and the Eutychites. What proportion of Christians in Egypt during the second century were orthodox is not known.[28]​
It is almost enough to make one wonder whether Isaiah 30:1-3 might not be a prophecy about N.T. textual criticism!

But we need to pause to reflect on the implications of Aland's statements. He is a champion of the Egyptian ("Alexandrian") text-type, and yet he himself informs us that up to A.D. 200 the textual tradition in Egypt could not be trusted and that by 200 the use of Greek had virtually died out there. So on what basis can he argue that the Egyptian text subsequently became the best? Aland also states that in the 2nd century, 3rd century, and into the 4th century Asia Minor continued to be "the heartland of the Church." This means that the superior qualifications of the Aegean area to protect, transmit and attest the N.T. Text carry over into the 4th century! It happens that Hort, Metzger and Aland (along with many others) have linked the "Byzantine" text-type to Lucian of Antioch, who died in 311. Now really, wouldn't a text produced by a leader in "the heartland of the Church" be better than whatever evolved in Egypt?

*Attitude toward the Text*

Where careful work is required, the attitude of those to whom the task is entrusted is of the essence. Are they aware? Do they agree? If they do not understand the nature of the task, the quality will probably do down. If they understand but do not agree, they might even resort to sabotage—a damaging eventuality. In the case of the N.T. books we may begin with the question: "Why would copies be made?"

We have seen that the faithful recognized the authority of the N.T. writings from the start, so the making of copies would have begun at once. The authors clearly intended their writings to be circulated, and the quality of the writings was so obvious that the word would get around and each assembly would want a copy. That Clement and Barnabas quote and allude to a variety of N.T. books by the turn of the 1st century makes clear that copies were in circulation. A Pauline corpus was known to Peter before A.D. 70. Polycarp (XIII) c. 115, in answer to a request from the Philippian church, sent a collection of Ignatius' letters to them, possibly within five years after Ignatius wrote them. Evidently it was normal procedure to make copies and collections (of worthy writings) so each assembly could have a set. Ignatius referred to the free travel and exchange between the churches and Justin to the weekly practice of reading the Scriptures in the assemblies (they had to have copies).

A second question would be: "What was the attitude of the copyists toward their work?" We already have the essence of the answer. Being followers of Christ, and believing that they were dealing with Scripture, to a basic honesty would be added reverence in their handling of the Text, from the start. And to these would be added vigilance, since the Apostles had repeatedly and emphatically warned them against false teachers. As the years went by, assuming that the faithful were persons of at least average integrity and intelligence, they would produce careful copies of the manuscripts they had received from the previous generation, persons whom they trusted, being assured that they were transmitting the true text. There would be accidental copying mistakes in their work, but no deliberate changes. It is important to note that the earliest Christians did not need to be textual critics. Starting out with what they knew to be the pure text, they had only to be reasonably honest and careful. I submit that we have good reason for understanding that they were especially watchful and careful—this especially in the early decades.

As time went on regional attitudes developed, not to mention regional politics. The rise of the so-called "school of Antioch" is a relevant consideration. Beginning with Theophilus, a bishop of Antioch who died around 185, the Antiochians began insisting upon the literal interpretation of Scripture. The point is that a literalist is obliged to be concerned about the precise wording of the text since his interpretation or exegesis hinges upon it.

It is reasonable to assume that this "literalist" mentality would have influenced the churches of Asia Minor and Greece and encouraged them in the careful and faithful transmission of the pure text that they had received. For example, the 1,000 MSS of the Syriac Peshitta are unparalleled for their consistency. (By way of contrast, the 8,000 MSS of the Latin Vulgate are remarkable for their extensive discrepancies, and in this they follow the example of the Old Latin MSS.) It is not unreasonable to suppose that the Antiochian antipathy toward the Alexandrian allegorical interpretation of Scripture would rather indispose them to view with favor any competing forms of the text coming out of Egypt. Similarly the Quarto-deciman controversy with Rome would scarcely enhance the appeal of any innovations coming from the West.

To the extent that the roots of the allegorical approach that flourished in Alexandria during the third century were already present, they would also be a negative factor. Since Philo of Alexandria was at the height of his influence when the first Christians arrived there, it may be that his allegorical interpretation of the O.T. began to rub off on the young church already in the first century. Since an allegorist is going to impose his own ideas on the text anyway, he would presumably have fewer inhibitions about altering it—precise wording would not be a high priority.

The school of literary criticism that existed at Alexandria would also be a negative factor, if it influenced the Church at all, and W.R. Farmer argues that it did. "But there is ample evidence that by the time of Eusebius the Alexandrian text-critical practices were being followed in at least some of the scriptoria where New Testament manuscripts were being produced. Exactly when Alexandrian text-critical principles were first used . . . is not known."[29] He goes on to suggest that the Christian school founded in Alexandria by Pantaenus, around 180, was bound to be influenced by the scholars of the great library of that city. The point is, the principles used in attempting to "restore" the works of Homer would not be appropriate for the NT writings when appeal to the Autographs, or exact copies made from them, was still possible.

*Conclusion*

What answer do the "four controlling factors" give to our question? The four speak with united voice: "The Aegean area was the best qualified to protect, transmit and attest the true text of the N.T. writings." This was true in the 2nd century; it was true in the 3rd century; it continued to be true in the 4th century. And now we are ready to answer the question, "Was the transmission normal?", and to attempt to trace the history of the text.

-------

Notes

[21]Metzger, _Early Versions_, p. 104.
[22]Colwell, "Scribal Habits," pp. 374-76, 380.
[23]K. and B. Aland, _The Text of the New Testament_ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), pp. 52-53.
[24]_Ibid_., p. 53.
[25]Roberts, pp. 42-43, 54-58.
[26]K. and B. Aland, p. 59.
[27]K. Aland, "The Text of the Church?", _Trinity Journal_, 1987, 8NS:138.
[28]Metzger, _Early Versions_, p. 101.
[29]W.R. Farmer, _The Last Twelve Verses of Mark_ (Cambridge: University Press, 1974), pp. 14-15. He cites B.H. Streeter, _The Four Gospels_, 1924, pp. 111, 122-23.​
----------

I post this fairly lengthy section of Pickering’s to give an idea of the text-critical hypothesis he gives to account for the existence of the Byzantine text, and also to put in perspective the phenomenon of the Alexandrian textform. Remember what Dr. Maurice Robinson said,



> A sound rational approach which accounts for all the phenomena and offers a reconstruction of the history of textual transmission is all that is demanded for any text-critical hypothesis. (From the Introduction to _The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Byzantine/Majority Textform_, by Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont.



Both Robinson’s and Pickering’s works (and Bruggen’s as well!) are important advances in textual study, and should not be ignored.


----------



## redeemed & reformed

SolaScriptura said:


> Grace Alone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason Erasmus included it in his text was because he lost a bet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain that, please? Thanks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you may know, Erasmus did not include the Comma in either the first or second editions of his Greek text. Erasmus promised his Romanist detractors that he would kindly include the Comma in his third edition if even one Greek manuscript containing the Comma could be produced.... A monk (can't recall the order) forged a Greek text containing it by translating the Comma from the Latin into Greek. Erasmus was then shown this manuscript and, being a man of his word, included the Comma in his 3rd edition.
> 
> I have to say that if true, this story makes Erasmus look like a spineless idiot.
Click to expand...


Indeed, I am in full agreement. As one of my past seminary professors used to say "The Roman Catholic Church handed Erasmus one document with the comma-and the ink was still wet on the page."


----------



## KMK

redeemed & reformed said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grace Alone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain that, please? Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you may know, Erasmus did not include the Comma in either the first or second editions of his Greek text. Erasmus promised his Romanist detractors that he would kindly include the Comma in his third edition if even one Greek manuscript containing the Comma could be produced.... A monk (can't recall the order) forged a Greek text containing it by translating the Comma from the Latin into Greek. Erasmus was then shown this manuscript and, being a man of his word, included the Comma in his 3rd edition.
> 
> I have to say that if true, this story makes Erasmus look like a spineless idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed, I am in full agreement. As one of my past seminary professors used to say "The Roman Catholic Church handed Erasmus one document with the comma-and the ink was still wet on the page."
Click to expand...


If a prof at a seminary said it, it must be true! 

Have you read through the whole thread? This 'story' about Erasmus is very dubious if you consider some of the earlier posts.

BTW, welcome to PB!


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

I submit for consideration the brief defense of 1 John 5:7 by Dr. Thomas Holland.


The following is an excerpt from Dr. Thomas Holland's _Crowned With Glory_, ©2000, used with permission (and found at this website). 

*1 John 5:7 (Johannine Comma) - "These Three Are One"*

_"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."_

The passage is called the _Johannine Comma_ and is not found in the majority of Greek manuscripts.[1] However, the verse is a wonderful testimony to the Heavenly Trinity and should be maintained in our English versions, not only because of its doctrinal significance but because of the external and internal evidence that testify to its authenticity.

The External Support: Although not found in most Greek manuscripts, the Johannine Comma is found in several. It is contained in 629 (fourteenth century), 61 (sixteenth century), 918 (sixteenth century), 2473 (seventeenth century), and 2318 (eighteenth century). It is also in the margins of 221 (tenth century), 635 (eleventh century), 88 (twelfth century), 429 (fourteenth century), and 636 (fifteenth century). There are about five hundred existing manuscripts of 1 John chapter five that do not contain the Comma.[2] It is clear that the reading found in the Textus Receptus is the minority reading with later textual support from the Greek witnesses. Nevertheless, being a minority reading does not eliminate it as genuine. The Critical Text considers the reading _Iesou_ (of Jesus) to be the genuine reading instead of _Iesou Christou_ (of Jesus Christ) in 1 John 1:7. Yet _Iesou_ is the minority reading with only twenty-four manuscripts supporting it, while four hundred seventy-seven manuscripts support the reading _Iesou Christou_ found in the Textus Receptus. Likewise, in 1 John 2:20 the minority reading _pantes_ (all) has only twelve manuscripts supporting it, while the majority reading is _panta_ (all things) has four hundred ninety-one manuscripts. Still, the Critical Text favors the minority reading over the majority in that passage. This is commonplace throughout the First Epistle of John, and the New Testament as a whole. Therefore, simply because a reading is in the minority does not eliminate it as being considered original. 

While the Greek textual evidence is weak, the Latin textual evidence for the Comma is extremely strong. It is in the vast majority of the Old Latin manuscripts, which outnumber the Greek manuscripts. Although some doubt if the Comma was a part of Jerome's original Vulgate, the evidence suggests that it was. Jerome states:

In that place particularly where we read about the unity of the Trinity which is placed in the First Epistle of John, in which also the names of three, i.e. of water, of blood, and of spirit, do they place in their edition and omitting the testimony of the Father; and the Word, and the Spirit in which the catholic faith is especially confirmed and the single substance of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is confirmed.[3]​
Other church fathers are also known to have quoted the Comma. Although some have questioned if Cyprian (258 AD) knew of the Comma, his citation certainly suggests that he did. He writes: "The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one' and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one'."[4] Also, there is no doubt that Priscillian (385 AD) cites the Comma:

As John says "and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh, the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus."[5]​
Likewise, the anti-Arian work compiled by an unknown writer, the _Varimadum_ (380 AD) states: "And John the Evangelist says, . . . 'And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one'."[6] Additionally, Cassian (435 AD), Cassiodorus (580 AD), and a host of other African and Western bishops in subsequent centuries have cited the Comma.[7] Therefore, we see that the reading has massive and ancient textual support apart from the Greek witnesses.

Internal Evidence: The structure of the Comma is certainly Johannine in style. John is noted for referring to Christ as "the Word." If 1 John 5:7 were an interpretation of verse eight, as some have suggested, than we would expect the verse to use "Son" instead of "Word." However, the verse uses the Greek word _logos_, which is uniquely in the style of John and provides evidence of its genuineness. Also, we find John drawing parallels between the Trinity and what they testify (1 John 4:13-14). Therefore, it comes as no surprise to find a parallel of witnesses containing groups of three, one heavenly and one earthly.

The strongest evidence, however, is found in the Greek text itself. Looking at 1 John 5:8, there are three nouns which, in Greek, stand in the neuter (Spirit, water, and blood). However, they are followed by a participle that is masculine. The Greek phrase here is _oi marturountes_ (who bare witness). Those who know the Greek language understand this to be poor grammar if left to stand on its own. Even more noticeably, verse six has the same participle but stands in the neuter (Gk.: _to marturoun_). Why are three neuter nouns supported with a masculine participle? The answer is found if we include verse seven. There we have two masculine nouns (Father and Son) followed by a neuter noun (Spirit). The verse also has the Greek masculine participle _oi marturountes_. With this clause introducing verse eight, it is very proper for the participle in verse eight to be masculine, because of the masculine nouns in verse seven. But if verse seven were not there it would become improper Greek grammar.
Even though Gregory of Nazianzus (390 AD) does not testify to the authenticity of the Comma, he makes mention of the flawed grammar resulting from its absence. In his _Theological Orientations_ he writes referring to John:

. . . (he has not been consistent) in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourselves disclaim in the case of Deity?[8]​
It is clear that Gregory recognized the inconsistency with Greek grammar if all we have are verses six and eight without verse seven. Other scholars have recognized the same thing. This was the argument of Robert Dabney of Union Theological Seminary in his book, _The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek_ (1891). Bishop Middleton in his book, _Doctrine of the Greek Article_, argues that verse seven must be a part of the text according to the Greek structure of the passage. Even in the famous commentary by Matthew Henry, there is a note stating that we must have verse seven if we are to have proper Greek in verse eight.[9]

While the external evidence makes the originality of the Comma possible, the internal evidence makes it very probable. When we consider the providential hand of God and His use of the Traditional Text in the Reformation it is clear that the Comma is authentic.

Footnotes:

[1] The first and second editions of Erasmus' Greek text did not contain the Comma. It is generally reported that Erasmus promised to include the Comma in his third edition if a single manuscript containing the Comma could be produced. A Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy) forged a Greek text containing it by translating the Comma from the Latin into Greek. Erasmus was then presented with this falsified manuscript and, being faithful to his word, reluctantly included the Comma in the 1522 edition. However, as has now been admitted by Dr. Bruce Metzger, this story is apocryphal (_The Text Of The New Testament_, 291). Metzger notes that H. J. de Jonge, a respected specialist on Erasmus, has established that there is no evidence of such events occurring. Therefore, opponents of the Comma in light of the historical facts should no longer affirm this report.

[2] Kurt Aland, in connection with Annette Benduhn-Mertz and Gerd Mink, _Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments: I. Die Katholischen Briefe Band 1: Das Material_ (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 1987), 163-166.

[3] _Prologue To The Canonical Epistles_. The Latin text reads, "_si ab interpretibus fideliter in latinum eloquium verterentur nec ambiguitatem legentibus facerent nec trinitatis unitate in prima joannis epistola positum legimus, in qua etiam, trium tantummodo vocabula hoc est aquae, sanguinis et spiritus in ipsa sua editione ponentes et patris verbique ac aspiritus testimoninum omittentes, in quo maxime et fides catholica roboratur, et patris et filii et spirtus sancti una divinitatis substantia comprobatur._"

[4] _Treatises_ 1 5:423.

[5] _Liber Apologeticus_.

[6] _Varimadum_ 90:20-21.

[7] Some other sources include the _Speculum_ (or _m_ of 450 AD), Victor of Vita (489 AD), Victor Vitensis (485 AD), Codex Freisingensis (of 500 AD), Fulgentius (533 AD), Isidore of Seville (636 AD), Codex Pal Legionensis (650 AD), and Jaqub of Edessa (700 AD). Interestingly, it is also found in the edition of the Apostle's Creed used by the Waldenses and Albigensians of the twelfth century.

[8] _Fifth Orientation the Holy Spirit_.

[9] Actually the 1 John commentary is the work of "Mr. John Reynolds of Shrewsbury," one of the ministers who completed Matthew Henry's commentary, which was left incomplete [only up to the end of Acts] at Henry's death in 1714.

[end of Holland]
-------------------

I will also look at Poimen’s (Rev. Daniel Kok) post #42 when I have time, though I must say that CalvinandHodges (Robert Paul Wieland) is more skilled at this kind of critical scrutiny on 1 John 5:7 than I – Rob, where are you?

It’s just that I’m busy, and these posts are time-consuming!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tallen

Steve,

I appreciate your posts and the amount of information you provide. You are a blessings.

BTW, I lifted part of this post and put it on my website.


----------



## nicnap

Except I did not lift any part of your post for my blog...


----------

