Johannine Comma
- Thread starter JM
- Start date
- Status
Archlute
Puritan Board Senior
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
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
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
Gnomon of the New Testament ... - Google Book Search
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
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:
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):
Nolan then renders these disputed Scriptures in the two languages, as well as the texts from which they have been removed. He continues,
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.
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:
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.
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]
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]
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.]
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.
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?
JohnGill
Puritan Board Senior
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
Puritan Board Senior
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?
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
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?
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
Thank you for the tip! I ordered my copy today.
shackleton
Puritan Board Junior
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
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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 supersede 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.
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 supersede 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.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
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’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 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.
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)
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
Puritanboard Brimstone
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
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?
Jason, do you have Dr. White's reply to him?
JM
Puritan Board Doctor
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.
[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
Puritan Board Graduate
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.
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
Puritan Board Doctor
Grymir
Puritan Board Graduate
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.
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
Puritanboard Commissioner
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):
The idea of "error ridden copies" continues when you get into the substance of the book.
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?
If God did "inspire" the autographs, so what since we don't have them?
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.
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?]
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):
The idea of "error ridden copies" continues when you get into the substance of the book.
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?
If God did "inspire" the autographs, so what since we don't have them?
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.
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
Puritan Board Professor
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
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
Puritan Board Senior
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
Puritan Board Senior
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
Puritanboard Commissioner
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."
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."
Last edited:
Grymir
Puritan Board Graduate
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.
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?
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.
- Status
