CalvinandHodges
Puritan Board Junior
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]
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]