# Johannine Comma



## CalvinandHodges (Sep 5, 2006)

Greetings All:

I can assure you all that I am not a screamer. A screamer, in my opinion, is like that fortune-teller who followed the Apostle Paul. She spoke the truth, Acts 16:17, but did so by screaming. There are quite a few people who hold to the Johannine Comma, or the King James Version, who are screamers - Gail Riplinger comes to mind. In my opinion such people are doing the works of Satan rather than God, because they do not adorn the Truth with righteousness and sound judgment.

In examing both sides of the argument I have become convinced that the Comma is original with the epistle of 1 John 5:7,8. First, let us look at the Comma:

*For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.*

The NIV translates thus:

*7For there are three that testify: 8the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. *

What is left out is this:

*...in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, *

Certainly, the objection to the Comma cannot be on the grounds of false doctrine. The doctrine of the Comma is pure, and holy, and true. It is a fine testimony to the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, and, as such, it is well agreeable with the Spirit of God. If you are Orthodox in your theology, and you are a Comma deletist, then you can at least agree that the doctrine of the Comma is orthodox. Can you not?

What, then, is the objection to the Comma? That it is not found in the majority of the Greek mss? As I understand it of the 5,000 copies of the Greek text in possession today only 501 actually contain the epistle of 1 John. Of these 501 mss only about 8-30 (depending on which scholar you consult) actually contain the disputed words.

This would be a heavy indictment indeed against the Comma if one were to suppose that the "majority rules." However, the majority is not always correct. Is there any evidence that such is the case with the Comma?

During the 3rd and 4th Centuries the Sabellian and Arian controversies raged. As most of us here know Arianism denies the Trinity, and essentially teaches what Jehovah Witnesses teach today. Sabellianism is often what we call modalism. One can only imagine the antipathy that these groups would have toward the Comma.

The church was almost completely overrun by the Arian controversy in the 4th century. The controversy was so great that Constantine called the Council of Nicea in order to determine the truth. Thus, copyists of the Greek testament who were sympathetic towards Arianism would likely to have edited out the Comma. Consequently, the "majority" of the copies made during the 4th Century would not have the Comma.

Evidence for this is found in St. Jerome's _Prologue to the Canonical Epistles _ wherein he states (referring to the Comma):

*Irresponsible translators left out this testimony*

This would mean that Jerome would have original or near original copies of 1 John that contained the Comma. His judgment then would be that the Comma is original to the Apostle John. Though much is made that his first edition of the Vulgate deleted the Comma one cannot say such for subsequent editions. John Calvin comes to the same conclusion:

*The whole of this verse has been by some omitted. Jerome thinks that this has happened through design rather than through mistake, and that indeed only on the part of the Latins. But as even the Greek copies do not agree, I dare not assert any thing on this subject. Since, however, the passage flows better when this clause is added, and as I see that it is found in the best and most approved copies, I am inclined to receive it as the true reading, Commentaries 1 John 5:7.*

For those who are Baptists among us: John Gill writes learnedly for the inclusion of the Comma in his commentary on 1 John 5:7. Time will prevent me from printing it here. Maybe later.

Another argument made is that since the Arian controversy was raging, then the Early Church Fathers should have made use of the Comma to refute the heretics. The fact is that the Early Church Fathers do reference it:

Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, Cassian, Vitensis, the Council of Carthage, and Fulgentius all refer to the Comma. Tertullian especially in defense of the Trinity. The Old Latin (circa 200AD) contains the Comma as well as the Old Italic (even older).

Of all of the arguments for the inclusion of the Comma I have found Robert Lewis Dabney's points to be well reasoned. In vol. 1 of his Discussions he has an article entitled, _The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek_, his arguments for the Comma start on page 377 of the Banner of Truth copy. Time will allow me to reproduce only his third argument here - it is an argument that is not commonly mentioned:

*Third, if the excision (of the Comma) is made, then the proposition at the end of the eighth verse, kai oi treis eis to en eisin, contains an unintelligible reference. The insuperable awkwardness of this chasm in the meaning is obscured in the authorized English version, "and these three agree in one." Let a version be given which shall do fair justice to the force of the definite article here, as established by the Greek idiom and of the whole construction, thus: "and these three agree to that aforesaid One," the argument appears. What is that aforesaid unity to which these three agree? If the seventh verse is exscinded, there is none: the "to en" so clearly designated by the definite article, as an object to which the reader has already been introduced, has no antecedent presence in the passage. Let the seventh verse stand, and all is clear: the three earthly witnesses testify to that aforementioned unity which the Father, Word, and Spirit constitute.* Greek words transliterated by me.

Grace and Peace,

-CH

[Edited on 5-9-06 by CalvinandHodges]

[Edited on 9-23-06 by CalvinandHodges]


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Sep 14, 2006)

*James White?*



I was perusing some past threads and I found this point concerning the Comma written by Murraya:




> I have been reading James White's site, and his recent stuff about the Comma Johanneum, and I can only say that I agree entirely with him. If the Comma is allowed on "textual grounds" (whatever they are!) then to be consistent we should allow all the additions in the Old Latin, and Codex Bezae, and thus finish up with a very different text from even the Majority (Byzantine) Text. Moreover, because it is found in the later Vulgate tradition, we would also have to accept all that that tradition has added to (and mistranslated) the text. No KJVO person is willing to do that.


Reading Dr. White's materials it appears to me that he needs a refresher course on the logical fallacies. The one presented above is the Slippery Slope Fallacy. The facts underlying the Comma do not coincide with adding or subtracting from other texts. On a case by case basis there are good and necessary reasons why the Comma should be included, and to exclude most, if not all, of the minority readings.

Using logical fallacies the way Dr. White does is a good lesson on what not to do as an apologist.

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## Maestroh (Sep 18, 2006)

*Care To Interact With Mr White?*

Your post has been mentioned here:


http://www.aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1540


Here's White's reply:

So today another defender of the Comma Johanneum (both of these posts appeared on the PuritanBoard) had his say. And when someone pointed to the materials I posted on the issue a number of months back, he again had to respond with personal attack, "Using logical fallacies the way Dr. White does is a good lesson on what not to do as an apologist." Now, I haven't the slightest interest in once again going back over an issue I believe has been settled for anyone with the slightest bit of willingness to reason consistently. This writer doesn't understand the topic he is so confidently addressing, but someone else will have to attempt to reason with him. But what caught my eye was both the initial post, and this one, though written by two different people, both had, as the church home of the writers, "Springs Reformed Presbyterian Chruch, Colorado Springs, CO, RPCNA." Is there some "and when you disagree with James White, poke him in the eye in passing" rule in the SRPC of CO Springs or something? Seems to be endemic to the whole congregation. How odd.

END WHITE

If he's as bad as you say, it ought to be easy for you to prove your point in a DIALOGUE (as opposed to a monologue) - right?


----------



## fivepointcalvinist (Sep 19, 2006)

not only has this topic been discussed and for the most part resolved, i cant understand why these sort of posts are not emailed to dr. white instead of posting polemics for all to see. call dr. white and discuss your issue with him as all who have problems with his theology should do.

www.aomin.org


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Sep 20, 2006)

*Dr. White and Logical Fallacies*

Greetings:

Thank you both for pointing this out.

Apparently, Dr. White cannot help himself in producing logical fallacies. By the way, pointing out logical fallacies is not an ad hominen argument. He accuses me of ad hominen arguments, yet, he himself indulges in even worse statements:


> This writer doesn't understand the topic he is so confidently addressing.


Ahhhh Dr. White - I quoted, or referred to, some of the greatest theologians in the History of the Church - John Calvin, John Gill, Robert Lewis Dabney - and he accuses me of not understanding the topic? Are they as ignorant as I?

It appears to me that Dr. White is unfamiliar with the history of textual transmission. This is obvious when one peruses his own website. In an article entitled "Erasmus of Rotterdam" Dr. White writes:


> The most famous textual ?problem? involved in Erasmus?s work was 1 John 5:7, the famous Comma Johanneum. Absent from every Greek text he had (indeed, some think from every Greek text in existence!), he rightly omitted it. A hue and cry was raised upon publication, and charges of heresy and Arianism were cast about. Erasmus asked his friend in Rome, Bombasius, to consult the famous Codex Vaticanus concerning the passage. When Bombasius replied that the verse was not contained in that ancient codex, Erasmus rashly proclaimed that if he were to find so much as one Greek text containing the ?Three Witnesses? he would include it in his next edition.Of course, such a manuscript was quickly produced. Many suspect it as having been produced specifically for the occasion. It is today known as minuscule 61 and is housed at Trinity College, Dublin.



This "story" which was first propounded by Dr. Bruce Metzger was challenged by Erasmus scholar H..J. de Jonge in his article, 'Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum,' Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 56 [1980], pp. 381-389. Notice the date - over 20 years ago. Dr. Metzger later recanted the "story." Yet, Dr. White seems to be about 20 years behind the times. One wonders if there is a prejudice involved here?

What did Erasmus really say? From his annotations:

"...that the Codex (Codex 61), like many other manuscripts, contained a text that was revised after, and adapted to, the Vulgate..."

Erasmus did not consider Codex 61 to have been made simply to prove the Comma. This was his standard operating procedure: If a Greek text could be found that backed up *any* of the readings of the Vulgate, then Erasmus would insert the reading. Thus, he did so in 1 John 5:7.

Dr. Metzger writes:


> It should, however, be noted that Henk Jan de Jonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies, could find no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion concerning a specific promise made by Erasmus; see his "Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum," Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, lvi (1980), pp. 381-9.


 Found: Metzger, Bruce M, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration Fourth Edition, pg. 146, n.22

"Frequently made assertion"? The only scholar who knew about this "story" was Dr. Metzger. It can be no where found by any scholar before him. His "story" has been often told by others, such as Dr. White, but with no scholarly foundation to it at all. It is a blatent misreading of Erasmus' annotations.

Again, Dr. White shows faulty scholarship and ad hominen attacks in order to "prove" his theory. He actually respects a liberal theologian (Dr. Bruce Metzger) as having more credibility than Calvin, Owen, Gill, and Dabney. One wonders at his priorities.

I have no animosity toward Dr. White. I believe his work and debates against Roman Catholicism and Mormonism are an important contribution to the modern day church. He has my respect on these grounds.

Finally, I have no problem debating with Dr. White here on Puritanboard, or, any of his lackeys. This is neutral ground - a place where he cannot edit or delete my posts. I would expect the Moderators here to be my protectors against any attempts by Dr. White to censure me.

God bless,

-CH

[Edited on 9-20-06 by CalvinandHodges]


----------



## larryjf (Sep 20, 2006)

Doesn't it make more sense gramatically to include 1 Jn 5:7?
Since spirit, water, and blood in v.8 are masculine (when they are normally neuter) wouldn't it make sense that they are rendered masculine because of the masculine "Father" and "Word" in v.7?


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Sep 20, 2006)

*Internal Evidence for the Comma*



> _Originally posted by larryjf_
> Doesn't it make more sense gramatically to include 1 Jn 5:7?
> Since spirit, water, and blood in v.8 are masculine (when they are normally neuter) wouldn't it make sense that they are rendered masculine because of the masculine "Father" and "Word" in v.7?



Hello Larry:

Yes, this is one of the many internal evidences for the inclusion of the Comma. The internal evidences completely destroy the Comma Deletist position.

The strength of the Deletist position rests on the paucity of mss that actually contain the Comma. However, such is not the only criterion used to determine a text of Scripture: 1) The witness of the Spirit of God, 2) Internal evidences, 3) Citation from patristic writers, 4) Textual transmission issues, and 5) Accuracy of the actual copies are all major factors in determining a text as Scripture.

The Deletist center their argument on only two criteria: 1) the "majority" of the mss, and 2) The "older" mss are better. Both of these are flawed in and of themselves.

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Sep 21, 2006)

Here is an interesting piece from the James Begg society about this issue.

http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~jbeggsoc/jbs-foundation06.html


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Sep 23, 2006)

*John Gill on The Comma*



> _Originally posted by Blueridge reformer_
> Here is an interesting piece from the James Begg society about this issue.
> 
> http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~jbeggsoc/jbs-foundation06.html



Greetings Blueridge:

The James Begg Society has produced some wonderful material on the Comma. You can find an even more comprehensive treatment here:

http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/1john5n7.html#notes

I had mentioned earlier that Dr. John Gill defends the Comma in his commentaries. So here it is:

*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 migh 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 adulterious 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 Jerome, 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 compliers 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, in the beginning of the sixth century, against the Arians, without any scruple or hesitation; and Jerome, as before observed, has it in his translation made in the latter end of the fourth century; and it is cited by Athanasius about the year 350; and before him by Cyprian, in the middle of the third century, about the year 250; and is referred to by Tertullian about the year 200; and which was a hundred years, or little more, of the writing of the epistle; which may be enough to satisfy any one 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 an old British copy before mentioned, put it into another edition of his translation, From: Gill, John, Commentaries, The Baptist Standard Bearer, Paris AR, 1989, vol. 9, pp. 653-654.*

Compare what Dr. Gill says above with what Bruce Metzger says in his Textual Commentary on the New Testament Greek:

*The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight*

Dr. Gill points out that Robert Stephens had nine Greek manuscripts that contained the Comma. Other scholars have compiled up to 30 manuscripts that have the Comma. Who are we to believe? It can be shown that Dr. Metzger clearly has a bias, and a very strong one against the Byzantine mss and the Comma as well.

Dr. Metzger continues:

*The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers*

The Greek Church was overrun by Sabellianism and Arianism - one would expect to see the Comma deleted. Dr. Gill points out that the Comma can be found in the Latin fathers: Jerome (circa 390AD) Athanasius (350AD), Cyprian (250AD), and Tertullian (200AD). Again, who are we to believe? In my first post I also pointed out the Council of Carthage (412AD) which specifically refers to the Comma. The Council consisted of over 400 pastors who unanimously subscribed to the Comma.

Look what Dr. Metzger says next:

*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 ... or (c) as revised by Alcuin. 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 (chapter 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Pricillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius*

After reading Dr. Gill's and actually looking at the evidence - it becomes clear to anyone with even a partial knowledge of the subject matter that Dr. Metzger is being disingenuous at best, and downright misleading at worst.

Consider this: If a heretic is citing a passage from Scripture that is clearly Orthodox in its theology, then such testimony is *even more* evidence for the authenticity of the text. In a court of law the testimony of a *hostile* witness (i.e. a "heretic" in this case) for the truth is weighted heavily for the prosecution or defense.

The hope that Comma Deletists have in this "story" is the character of a heretic. Yet, God will often put the truth in the mouths of his enemies in order to confound them. Baalim who went to curse Israel but blessed them instead comes to mind.

Dr. Metzger refers to the Comma as a "gloss" or interpretation placed in the margin of some of the copies. Such a view is circumstantial at best. That the Comma is found in the margin of some Greek texts may be the result of an editor actually correcting the copy by writing in the full text. Again, this is circumstantial evidence because one cannot read the mind of the copiest or the redactor. However, by not qualifying his statements Dr. Metzger, and his lackeys, claim they can actually read the minds of those who copied the texts. Such is the Fallacy of False Precision.

It is clear that the bias of those who delete the Comma blind them to the actual facts.

Grace and Peace,

-CH

[Edited on 9-23-06 by CalvinandHodges]

[Edited on 9-24-06 by CalvinandHodges]


----------



## MurrayA (Oct 8, 2006)

"Reading Dr. White's materials it appears to me that he needs a refresher course on the logical fallacies. The one presented above is the Slippery Slope Fallacy."

CalvinandHodges accuses me of the "slippery slope" fallacy! I suggest he look at some texts on logic! The fallacy he refers to is arguing that If A is allowed, it wil lead to B, thence to C, and so on...down to Z, which is unacceptable, an argument form sometimes referred to as the argument of the beard. However, while this fallacy has a superficial similarity to the valid argument form of reductio ad absurdam, the relationship is precisely that: superficial; and the superficial fall for it.

On the contrary, I am arguing by reductio ad absurdam, that if one allows the Comma Johanneum, based as it is on a handful of very late MSS, to be consistent one should also allow - on those same principles - for the many variations in Codex Bezae, the Old Latin, the later Vg MSS, etc. - additions which as a matter of fact can claim better support than the Comma (e.g. the placement of Rom.16:25-27 after Rom.14:33 instead of at the end of Rom.16). No KJVO advocate is willing to do this, and in so doing he is merely engaging in special pleading for a piece of tradition.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Oct 8, 2006)

Greetings:

Dr. White was originally quoted as saying:




> If the Comma is allowed on "textual grounds" (whatever they are!) then to be consistent we should allow all the additions in the Old Latin, and Codex Bezae, and thus finish up with a very different text from even the Majority (Byzantine) Text.



MurrayA wrote:


> If A is allowed, it wil lead to B, thence to C, and so on...down to Z, which is unacceptable,



Thus, to paraphrase:

If A is allowed (the TR reading) then it will lead to allowing minority readings of B (the Old Latin), and C (Codex Bezae) etc...

Think again Dr. White - this is the slippery slope fallacy.

Now to Dr. White's abuse of the reductio argument.

In formal logic, reductio ad absurdum is used when a formal contradiction can be derived from a premise, allowing one to conclude that the premise is false. If a contradiction is derived from a set of premises, this shows that at least one of the premises is false, but other means must be used to determine which one.

The argument for the Johannine Comma contains both external and internal reasons. It does not necessarily follow, as Dr. White is implying, that these reasons will justify other minority readings.

The premises for Dr. White's reductio argument *are actually used* by his beloved Nestle-Aland text:


> Many other passages are accepted into the Critical Texts on even less authority than those above. In Matthew 11:19, the phrase "wisdom is justified of her children" is altered to "wisdom is justified of her works" on the emendation of a mere three Greek mss., versus an overwhelming host of both Greek and external evidences. Likewise, the word "for" is removed from James 4:14 on the basis of four Greek mss. and scant external evidence, versus (again) an overwhelming testimony of both Greek and external witness. Similarly, the final clause of Romans 8:24 is changed from "for why does anyone hope for what he sees" to "for who hopes for what he sees", all on the basis of two Greek manuscripts, versus the almost unified witness of the Greek mss. body along with the witness of practically all other ancient versions except the Syriac (which gives several differing readings, many of which don't agree with the Critical Text). In each of these examples, the basis for the emendation is upon the nearly (or sometimes completely) sole witness of some of the favoured Alexandrian texts, as opposed to the much larger and nearly as antique witness of the majority texts, which are almost always supported by the great body of external witness from other ancient versions.


Dr. White's Greek Text is far more guilty of textual emendations of minority readings *for no scholarly reason whatsoever - except on the whim of Dr. White and those whom he agrees with on this matter.*

Again, the Comma has scholarly reasons for its inclusion. These other emendations do not. I will restate it again:

Using logical fallacies the way Dr. White does is a lesson in what not to do as a Christian apologist.

Grace and Peace,

-CH

[Edited on 10-7-06 by CalvinandHodges]

[Edited on 10-7-06 by CalvinandHodges]


----------



## MurrayA (Oct 8, 2006)

CalvinandHodges,
You do me an honour of quoting my own statement as from Dr. White. In fact, I am responsible for both of the first two quotations you reproduce! When you can't get such a simple thing right, it makes me wonder about your arguments otherwise.

Reductio ad absurdam is both a formal and informal argument form, and to restrict it to the purely formal outline which you state, and then pass it off as the whole story is just one of the sleight-of-hand manoeuvres in your response. The other one regards your estimate of Matt.11:19 in your quote with approval from Aland (p?). There are at least four variations listed in the UBS 4th Edition Critical Apparatus, and one of note is "of all her works" attested by f13. Again, the genealogical principle is what is operating here - not merely counting manuscripts.

Finally, I note you slogan at the bottom of your post:
KJV-only-ism has unnecessarily caused strife among brethren over what I believe are non-essentials. There are strict innerranists who hold to modern critical texts, such as myself and my colleagues at the Reformed Theological College, Geelong. KJV-onlists have tried to come in and disrupt our churches, and the KJV-only bandwagon was their big issue. Love of the brethren, forbearance, etc. they seemed to know little of. Let's have done with this issue which generates more heat than light. Prov.6:19!


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Oct 8, 2006)

*MurryA Spins again*

Greetings:

Apparently, you do not read so well - which suggests to me that you are unable to represent your opponent's position rightly.

In my original post about James White I wrote:


> I was perusing some past threads and I found this point concerning the Comma written by Murraya:



I was quoting you quoting Dr. White. Now, if your quote is incorrect, then I think you need to apologize to Dr. White for your error. However, if your quote is accurate, then why do you excoriate me for it? Do you quote Dr. White or do you not? It is clear that you are in your post.

Concerning reductio ad absurdum the weak form of the argument (which I assume is what you mean by "informal" and if I am incorrect, then please correct me) can be easily refuted by one who simply replies that he/she does not accept the *purportedly* absurd conclusion. What may be absurd in your mind may not be absurd in someone else's. Consequently, your "informal" argument form does not comprise a valid argument.

The copy of Nestle-Aland I have is the 3rd edition, and you will find Matt. 11:19 on pg. 40. 

I have never accused a brother of being un-Orthodox because he may believe in the Comma deletist position. If you find yourself "heated" in such a debate, then maybe your emotional status on this matter is not far from the KJO types who can only scream their points. I, for one, am not of such a disposition.

The quotation that I used can be found in a previously quoted website: http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/1john5n7.html

Grouping all who hold to the Comma as "KJV Onlyists" is another logical fallacy (it is also an unloving statement). I call it the Parts-Whole fallacy. What is true of the part is not necessarily true of the whole.

Grace and Peace,

-CH

[Edited on 10-8-06 by CalvinandHodges]

[Edited on 10-8-06 by CalvinandHodges]

[Edited on 10-8-06 by CalvinandHodges]


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Oct 10, 2006)

*Robert Lewis Dabney*

Greetings:

In an article entitled, _The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek_, Dr. Dabney gives a sound defense of the TR as well as some excellent reasons for the Comma. Despite assertions to the contrary Dr. Dabney points out that there are changes made in doctrine concerning these "new" or various readings. But, what is more important for this thread are his reasons for including the Comma. Nevertheless, before we proceed to some of Dabney's reasons for the Comma we must look at his supposed retraction from his commitment to the Comma.

Much Bru-ha-ha has been made concerning a "retraction" he made about 10 years after writing the above treatise. In an article entitled, _The Revised Version of the New Testament_ Dr. Dabney is quoted thus:

*Next, there was a suppression of this all-important fact, that since the development of the vast critical apparatus of our century, the textus receptus, whether by good fortune or by the critical sagacity of Erasmus or by the superintendence of a good providence, has been found to stand the ordeal amazingly well, has been accredited instead of discredited by the critical texts. So slight were the modifications in its readings clearly determined by the vast collations made by the critics of the immediately preceding generation (collations embracing every one of the bosted uncials, except the Sinai MS.), that of all the important various readings only one (1 John 5:7) has been given up to excision by a unanimous consent of competent critics.*

Standing on its own this may very well be considered a "retraction" of what he said earlier. However, Dr. Dabney continues a little later on to note the behaviour of the critics concerning their departure from the readings of the TR:

*Now, our charge is, that this history of the results of the critical work of the age is suppressed in order to disparage the received text. It is well known that after Griesbach, a critic of a revolutionary temper, had issued his text, departing widely from the received one, the steady tendency of later critics, as Hahn, Scholtz, etc., guided by wider collations and better critical evidence, has been to return towards the textus receptus on many of the readings where Griesbach had departed from it. And now it is credibly stated that Tischendorf's latest edition, as compared with his earliest, exhibits the same tendency. His first impulse, while excited by his discovery of the Sinai MS., was adverse: but the leaning of his riper experience was more favorable. He also found "the old wine was better."*

As the textual critics, such as Tischendorf, sought to bring their texts closer to a 1st Century mss they have increasingly modified their texts to more resemble the TR! One could have spared them the trouble, if they were not so prejudiced against the TR, by pointing out that we do have the received apographia of the autographs in the TR. Such, I would assert, is also the case with the Comma. To sum up what Dr. Dabney has said:

*The more the textual critics "revise" their text - the closer it comes to the Received Text.*

As a supporter of both the Received Text as well as the Comma - I am not too surprised.

Part 2 will have to come later.

God bless,

-CH

[Edited on 10-10-06 by CalvinandHodges]

[Edited on 10-10-06 by CalvinandHodges]

[Edited on 10-10-06 by CalvinandHodges]


----------



## Robert Truelove (Nov 6, 2006)

Dr Alan Cairns in his Dictionary of Theological Terms pointed out in his rather lengthy section on textual criticism that those who hold to the Traditional Text and insist on 1 John 5:7 based upon the internal evidence must do so using the same sorts of reasonings that scholars use for the Critical Text. Dr Cairns is a Traditional Text advocate but sees the arguements for 1 John 5:7 to be based upon arguements that are fundamentally contrary to a Traditional Text position.

As a Critical Text convert, I just smile when I see these defenses of 1 John 5:7.  

1 John 5:7, it is argued, is to be accepted because of an arguement to internal evidence in spite of the overwhelming evidence of the manuscripts. At the same time, all arguements for the Critical Text readings based upon both internal and external evidence for readings that are clearly harmonizations are to be rejected (harmonizations being only 1 example). Consistent? I 'trow' not.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Nov 10, 2006)

prespastor said:


> Dr Alan Cairns in his Dictionary of Theological Terms pointed out in his rather lengthy section on textual criticism that those who hold to the Traditional Text and insist on 1 John 5:7 based upon the internal evidence must do so using the same sorts of reasonings that scholars use for the Critical Text. Dr Cairns is a Traditional Text advocate but sees the arguements for 1 John 5:7 to be based upon arguements that are fundamentally contrary to a Traditional Text position.
> 
> As a Critical Text convert, I just smile when I see these defenses of 1 John 5:7.
> 
> 1 John 5:7, it is argued, is to be accepted because of an arguement to internal evidence in spite of the overwhelming evidence of the manuscripts. At the same time, all arguements for the Critical Text readings based upon both internal and external evidence for readings that are clearly harmonizations are to be rejected (harmonizations being only 1 example). Consistent? I 'trow' not.



Hi:

That is an extremely interesting postion, and I would like to make 2 remarks upon it:

First, since you hold to the Critical Text, then why would you reject the Comma - seeing that it is consistent with your own views of Textual Criticism?

Second, the ultimate point that I am going to make is that it is the Spirit of God who works by and with the Word of God in our hearts that testifies to all believers that the Comma is true. Consequently, I would assert that Greek Texts and translations into other languages grieve the Spirit when they do not include the Comma.

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Dec 3, 2006)

*Replies not made?*

Hi:

I waited quite a while for Prespastor to reply to my last post, but have received none up to date. Consequently, I will continue:

Robert Lewis Dabney writes:

*fourth, the internal evidence from the apostle's scope is, if possible, still more conclusive. He had just asserted (verses 1 to 6) the essential importance of faith as the instrumental bond of our spiritual life and the only victory over the world. To exert such energy, faith must have a solid warrant. And the thing of which faith must be assured is the true sonship and proper divinity of Christ. See emphatically verse 5 with verses 11,12,20. The only faith that quickens the soul and overcomes the world is the belief (verse 5) that Jesus is God's Son, that God has appointed him our Life (compare John's Gospel, 5:21,26), and that this Life is true or veritable God. Now, then, the apostle's scope is to answer this question: On what warrant shall our faith accept these wondrous propositions about Jesus? The ninth verse give us the key-note of his answer: On God's warrant. This divine warrant (nothing less would answer) comes to us, first (verse 6) in the word of the Holy Ghost speaking by his inspired men. (See John's Gospel, 16:8, etc.) It comes to us, second, (verse 7), in the word of the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, asserting and confirming by miracles the sonship and unity of Jesus Christ with the Father ( as in Matt. 3:16,17; John 5:37; Matt. 12:28; John 8:18; 15:26; and such like places). It comes to us, third (verse 8), in the work of the Holy Ghost applying the blood and water from Christ's pierced side for our cleansing, in accordance with ancient types and modern sacraments, which concur in the doctrine of Christ's divinity. It comes to us fourth (verse 10), in the spiritual consciousness of the believer himself, certifying to him that he feels within a divine change. How consistent, how harmonious is all this, if we accept the seventh verse as genuine? But, if we exscind it, the very keystone of the arch of evidence is wanting; the crowning proof that the warrant of our faith is divine (verse 9) is struck out, * Discussions, vol. 1 pp. 378-379.

A simple reading of the Critical Text leaves one with the nagging thought that something is missing. The Received Text provides the answer that the CT omits.

Blessings.

-CH


----------



## Maestroh (Dec 11, 2006)

*Just A Few Comments Here*

C and H,

I don't have much time as I'm preparing for finals next week. However, something you said got me to thinking about rhetoric.




CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings Blueridge:
> 
> The James Begg Society has produced some wonderful material on the Comma. You can find an even more comprehensive treatment here:
> 
> ...



You are correct. Gill does make that claim.



CalvinandHodges said:


> Compare what Dr. Gill says above with what Bruce Metzger says in his Textual Commentary on the New Testament Greek:
> 
> *The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight*
> 
> Dr. Gill points out that Robert Stephens had nine Greek manuscripts that contained the Comma. Other scholars have compiled up to 30 manuscripts that have the Comma. Who are we to believe? It can be shown that Dr. Metzger clearly has a bias, and a very strong one against the Byzantine mss and the Comma as well.



Instead of talking in vauge 'what ifs,' let's examine the evidence.

1) What nine manuscripts had the Comma Johanneum? Can you tell us?

2) Which 30 manuscripts have it?

3) You assert Metzger has a bias; on what basis do you assert this BEFORE even attempting to prove it?

Could one not use the SAME STANDARDS you are and say that Gill is the one who is biased? Btw, I'm not accusing Gill of bias because I don't know; I'm merely interacting with your argument.

And let's face it: the textual manuscripts available are MUCH MORE ABUNDANT TODAY than they were in Gill's time.

Interestingly enough, it makes me wonder exactly how deep your investigation into this has gone. D.A. Carson dealt with the Gill phrase back in 1977 in "The KJV Debate: A Plea for Realism." But if you're going to say that Gill knew about it in nine copies, it seems to me that you ought to be able to tell the rest of us which nine copies.



CalvinandHodges said:


> Dr. Metzger continues:
> 
> *The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers*
> 
> ...



Sir,

Have you actually LOOKED at the manuscripts you're talking about? Or are you repeating mis-information?

Here's what I gain from reading your argument: you like Gill (who was Reformed) and you don't like Metzger (who is a modernist).

Therefore - sans evidence - Gill is right. Period. End of discussion.

Do you even know the first thing about patristic evidence? Where may I look up these citations - and are they from critical editions or just glosses from Migne's Patroglia?

I would point out one final note that seems lost on you: people like James White and others who side with the Critical Text on this issue are TRINITARIANS!!! Kenneth Barker (of the NIV) has said he would love to have this verse in the Bible. It would certainly make things easier.

But the floodgates are open on that issue. Once a reading that is found in four manuscripts out of about 900 containing the book is accepted as 'original,' we may as well accept other glosses as well.

And I echo other writers by noting that perhaps it would be more productive if you contacted Mr White yourself. I have and have found him to be very kind and enlightening, even when I disagree with him.

God bless, 

maestroh


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Dec 11, 2006)

*Citations of the Comma*



Maestroh said:


> C and H,
> 
> I don't have much time as I'm preparing for finals next week. However, something you said got me to thinking about rhetoric.
> 
> ...



Hay maestroh:

You ask some very good questions, and I thank you for doing so. Some of these have been answered throughout this whole thread. You ask me which 9 mss is Dr. Gill referring to? I cannot answer for Dr. Gill since he does not seem to list them. The ones that I am personally familiar with are:

Codex Ravianus (Wizanburgensis) of the 8th century, 629 (14th century), 61 (16th century), 918 (16th century), 2473 (17th century), and 2318 (18th century). It is also in the margins of 221 (10th century), 635 (11th century), 88 (12th century), 429 (14th century), and 636 (15th century).

These are the ones that come to mind at the time.

What I find peculiar concerning your post is that I have granted to the CT'ers the argument concerning the paucity of Greek texts that contain the Comma. I believe I pointed out that in over 5,000 extant mss only 501 contain the letter of 1 John. I have also pointed out that of these 501 mss anywhere from 9 to 30 of these contain the Comma. The math is simple to do - the vast majority of Greek texts which contain 1 John omit the Comma. Whether you hold to Dr. Metzger's minimalist views or D.A. Waite's findings on the number of Greek mss containing the Comma is rather irrelevant to the argument that I am making.

As an aside: Though the CT deletes the Comma based on the paucity of Greek texts - it does seem to accept minority readings as authoritative. 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 _panta_ (all things) has four hundred ninety-one manuscripts. I hesitate to mention that this seems hypocritical at best.

You might turn this argument around on me, and claim that we should accept all the minority readings because we accept the Comma. I will remind you that I do not base my argument for the Comma the way CT'ers do: that is, counting mss.

If you have carefully read my posts on this thread, then you would know that I have never called into question the orthodoxy of those who hold to the Comma deletist position. Dr. Carson and Dr. White are Trinitarians and I never questioned them on it. Dr. Metzger I am not so sure about, because I never read any statement by him on the subject either for or against. As you have noted: Dr. Metzger is a modernist. Thus, he holds liberal positions on Faith, Grace, Salvation, and man's relationship with God. (See J. Grescham Machen's book, Christianity and Liberalism for example).

Does Dr. Metzger have a bias? I believe that we all do - including Dr. Gill. What one has to prove is that one bias is better than the others. If Dr. Metzger is aware that there are more Greek mss that contain the Comma than the ones he listed, then he is guilty of suppressing evidence in order to prove his bias. Such is not very scholarly. If a Modernist and a Calvinist give contradictory evidence, then the basic question is trust: Do you trust a Modernist or a Calvinist? Dr. Gill mentions that the Syriac Version has the Comma in it. Dr. Metzger says the Syriac Version does not have the Comma in it. One of them is right.

As far as Dr. White is concerned: I do not believe that this subject can be debated for 15 minutes on the radio. Such is not the proper forum for this type of discussion. I actually personally met Dr. White when I was attending a church on Long Island, NY, and I drove him once in my car to one of his lectures. I have no problem discussing it here with him. Why would he object to such?

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## Maestroh (Dec 14, 2006)

*Calvin and Hodges*

While I do not have time to reply in-depth at the moment, thank you for addressing it. Note that I did read your posting.

God bless you,

maestroh


----------



## larryjf (Dec 14, 2006)

CalvinandHodges,



> You might turn this argument around on me, and claim that we should accept all the minority readings because we accept the Comma. I will remind you that I do not base my argument for the Comma the way CT'ers do: that is, counting mss.



This isn't right. CT'ers don't count manuscripts, they weigh them.
They may take minority readings as being authentic, but they don't do it simply because they are minority.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Dec 15, 2006)

*That is the point, Larry*



larryjf said:


> CalvinandHodges,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I guess maestro is not as great a performer as his namesake makes him out to be. 

Hi Larry:

Nevertheless, one could question the criterion used by CT'ers to "weigh" the mss. When Dr. Metzger writes:



> (1) The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight.., From his Textual Commentary, pg 647.



Is that not counting manuscripts? This is his first reason under "External Evidences" concerning his comma deletist position. It is, really, his only argument that can stand a rigorous analysis. He does not mention the "quality" or "weight" of these mss, but just the number of them that do/do not contain the Comma.

Shall we investigate his other reasons?



> (2) The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have empolyed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian)..., ], ibid, pg. 648.



Do we have all of the works of all of the Greek Fathers? If we did, then maybe his argument could hold some weight (no pun intended). But it was the very fact that the Greek Church was overrun first by Sabellianism and then by Arianism that would cause the text to be deleted by these heretics. As Peter noted, 2 Peter 3:16, heretics and false teaches have no qualms about altering the text to suit their doctrines. Such was/is the testimony of the Church even up to today (Jehovah Witnesses).

One should not be surprised to find a 3rd or 4th century Greek text that deletes the Comma. Heretics have been deleting texts since the 1st century. This argument by Dr. Metzger can be easily torn down.



> (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 [copies A.D. 541-546] and codex Amiatinus [copies before A.D. 716] or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]), ], ibid, pg. 648.



The Waldenses, whose roots go all the way back past the 4th century, testify that the Comma is genuine: as it is found in their old Italic Bible and quoted in their commentary on the Lord's Supper. The three Church Fathers that Dr. Metzger quotes (Tertullian, Cyprian. Augustine) all quote the Comma. Tertullian especially in defending the Trinity. In fact, it is an argument among CT'ers that the Comma was an interpolation that found its way into the text from St. Augustine! Even though Jerome's first edition may have not had the Comma the subsequent editions of his Vulgate included it. He also testified that "irresponsible translators" deleted this passage. As noted before: Dr. Gill states that the Comma is in the Syriac Bible. Thus, Dr. Metzger's statements here are disingenuous at best and downright false at worst.

What is most patently false among his statments is his assertion regarding "Internal Probabilities" here:



> (2)As regards intrinsic probability, the passage makes an awkward break in the sense, ibid, Pg 649.



When it is universally testified that the Comma, in fact, clarifies the meaning of 1 John 5:7 while deleting it makes the passage awkward. What gall! Any person can see that it is the deletist position that "makes an awkward break in the sense." Dr. Metzger clearly shows his bias on this matter.

So, what is the CT'er left with? The only arguement that has any logical validity is his "counting mss" argument. Yet, even CT'ers will admit that this is not enough of an argument as they also include minority readings in their text.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## larryjf (Dec 15, 2006)

> He does not mention the "quality" or "weight" of these mss, but just the number of them that do/do not contain the Comma.


He does not only mention the number of manuscripts, he goes on to list in which manuscripts they are found and what the date is of those manuscripts (late dates). Also, he tells us that a few of them were added to the manuscripts. He also tells us that 4 of the 8 manuscripts have the reading in the margin.

This is more than simply telling us the number. CTers look at number, date, and other evidences to weight the manuscripts. Of course number is important, but it's not the only factor for weighing the evidence.

The problem i have with CTers is that i don't think they give enough weight (if any) to the Byzantine family. They basically just reject it from the formulation all together.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Dec 15, 2006)

*Good Point*



larryjf said:


> He does not only mention the number of manuscripts, he goes on to list in which manuscripts they are found and what the date is of those manuscripts (late dates). Also, he tells us that a few of them were added to the manuscripts. He also tells us that 4 of the 8 manuscripts have the reading in the margin.
> 
> This is more than simply telling us the number. CTers look at number, date, and other evidences to weight the manuscripts. Of course number is important, but it's not the only factor for weighing the evidence.
> 
> The problem i have with CTers is that i don't think they give enough weight (if any) to the Byzantine family. They basically just reject it from the formulation all together.



Hi:

I would accept such a statement from them *if* they did so with every minority reading that they do include in their text. When you examine Dr. Metzger's explanation of 1 John 2:20, pg. 641, you will find his practice different. He only gives the opinion of the committee rather than the "weight" of the mss.

Thanks,

-CH


----------



## larryjf (Dec 15, 2006)

I will agree with you that the CTers are not as unbiasedly scientific as they would have you think.

I have been on the fence regarding manuscripts for some time now. For a while i was pro-TR, then pro-Critical (reasoned eclectic approach). Now i am on the fence. I wish there was something that would clinch it for me.

I like a lot of what JerusalemBlade (Steve Rafalsky) says. He makes a good case for the TR. If he were to put it all in one place, like a small book, i would love to get a copy!


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Dec 15, 2006)

*Hay*



larryjf said:


> I will agree with you that the CTers are not as unbiasedly scientific as they would have you think.
> 
> I have been on the fence regarding manuscripts for some time now. For a while i was pro-TR, then pro-Critical (reasoned eclectic approach). Now i am on the fence. I wish there was something that would clinch it for me.
> 
> I like a lot of what JerusalemBlade (Steve Rafalsky) says. He makes a good case for the TR. If he were to put it all in one place, like a small book, i would love to get a copy!



Hi Larry:

You know, I thought the same thing. I think Steve should write a book about it.

What do you think Steve?

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Dec 15, 2006)

*Human Philosophies vs. The Spirit of God*

Hay Larry:

You wrote:



> I have been on the fence regarding manuscripts for some time now. For a while i was pro-TR, then pro-Critical (reasoned eclectic approach). Now i am on the fence. I wish there was something that would clinch it for me.



The Westminster Confession of Faith, and the London Baptist Confession as well, state what our attitude towards Textual Criticism should be:



> We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to a high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God,



This is the argument for the Comma that I am trying to make. But the end and main point of my position is this:



> yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.



"Reasoned eclecticism, Majority Text rules, Westcott-Hort" and other such human designed philosophies are not valid "tests" to "criticize" the Bible. All of these depart from Reformed Orthodoxy. The only competant critic is the Spirit of God.

When you read the Comma - what does your Born Again heart say?

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## larryjf (Dec 15, 2006)

CalvinandHodges,

The Comma is definitely an orthodox teaching. Folks that want its removal should at least admit that the removal is not because of unorthodoxy.

I've often thought that it's better to use the TR than the CT because the TR has more text than the CT. And i can't think of any of that text that i would consider unorthodox. In that respect we could say that it's better to have too much than too little.

What if both sides are true and the TR has added text while the CT has deleted text. Wouldn't it be better to accept the text with the extra readings rather than accept the text with deleted readings?

Rev 22:18-19
_I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
_

Would it be better to go through plagues or to have our share in the tree of life taken away? (rhetorical question)


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 16, 2006)

Hi Larry and Robert,

The plan _is_ to write a book, though I have two others going as well, _A Poet Arises In Israel_, and _A Great And Terrible Love_, the former a subsection in the latter. The work on the Scriptures is being greatly helped though the interactions and writings here at PB. Will I have time enough to finish these? God knows.

It is a big help that I can publish these in e-book format (pdf, say) and make them available on the net. Who needs publishers anymore?

Re 1 Jn 5:7, the issue is not whether or not it is orthodox, but is it part of the original epistle of John. I hold with those who say it is.

Steve


----------



## larryjf (Dec 16, 2006)

That is great news Steve.
Please let us know when the book is out, i would definitely get a copy.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 18, 2006)

Robert,

You mentioned in post #22, "The Waldenses, whose roots go all the way back past the 4th century, testify that the Comma is genuine: as it is found in their old Italic Bible and quoted in their commentary on the Lord's Supper."

I am interested in following this trail. Currently I am reading Peter Alix's _The Ecclesiastical History of the Ancient Churches of Piedmont, and of the Albigenses_, seeking to find hard info on the Waldenses and 1 John 5:7 in their writings (Piedmont being in the mountainous regions of Italy, which broke from "church" of Rome when it began apostatizing in the 4th century). Any materials you can steer me to? Thanks,

Steve


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Dec 18, 2006)

*Waldenses*

Hay Steve:

I would be happy to: 

Modern Bible Translations Unmasked, by Russel and Colin Standish, pgs. 134,135.

Online version you will find here: http://www.champs-of-truth.com/reform/STN_MBTU.PDF

As I understand it: The Comma was handed down to the Geneva and KJV Bibles though a translation done by John Calvin's cousin Robert Olivetan from the Waldensian Old Italic Bible. Olivetan was said to have translated the French 1562 Geneva Bible at the College of the Barbe in the Waldensian Valley. The Waldensians trace their lineage back to Ambrose of Milan (died 397). But the Church in Milan was present much earlier.

Blessings,

Rob


----------

