Johannine Comma

JM · #1 (**permalink**) 09-12-2008, 11:35 PM

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

Is the Johannine Comma part of the New Testament?

ADKing · #2 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008, 09:29 AM

Yes, It is part of Scripture.

http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.o...icles/A102.pdf

FrielWatcher · #3 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008, 09:43 AM

Why wouldn't it be?

SolaScriptura · #4 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008, 10:55 AM

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

Grace Alone · #5 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolaScriptura

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

Can you explain that, please? Thanks!

JM · #6 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008, 11:02 AM

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

nicnap · #7 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolaScriptura

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

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

SolaScriptura · #8 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grace Alone

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolaScriptura

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

Can you explain that, please? Thanks!

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

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

Blueridge Believer · #9 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008, 11:08 AM

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

SolaScriptura · #10 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nicnap

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolaScriptura

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

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

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

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

nicnap · #11 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008, 11:14 AM

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

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

TimV · #12 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008, 11:20 AM

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

CalvinandHodges · #13 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolaScriptura

Quote:

Originally Posted by nicnap

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolaScriptura

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

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

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

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

Hi:

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

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

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

Blessings,

Rob

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

-RPW

FrielWatcher · #14 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008, 11:21 AM

lighten the mood....

**KMK** · #15 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolaScriptura

Quote:

Originally Posted by nicnap

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolaScriptura

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

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

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrielWatcher

lighten the mood....

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

nicnap · #16 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimV

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

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

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

**DMcFadden** · #17 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008, 11:56 AM

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

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

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

CalvinandHodges · #18 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

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

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

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

The actual quote from De Jong reads thus:

Quote:

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

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

Grace and Peace,

-Rob

**DMcFadden** · #19 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008, 12:17 PM

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

Quote:

5.7–8 μαρτυροῦντες, 8 τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα {A}
After μαρτυροῦντες the Textus Receptus adds the following: ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἔν εἰσι. (8) καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ. That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain in the light of the following considerations.

(A) External Evidence.
(1) The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript. The eight manuscripts are as follows:
61:
codex Montfortianus, dating from the early sixteenth century.
88v.r.:
a variant reading in a sixteenth century hand, added to the fourteenth-century codex Regius of Naples.
221v.r.:
a variant reading added to a tenth-century manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
429v.r.:
a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Wolfenbüttel.
636v.r.:
a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Naples.
918:
a sixteenth-century manuscript at the Escorial, Spain.
2318:
an eighteenth-century manuscript, influenced by the Clementine Vulgate, at Bucharest, Rumania.

(2) The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.

(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied a.d. 541–46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before a.d. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).
The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text. In the fifth century the gloss was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy as part of the text of the Epistle, and from the sixth century onwards it is found more and more frequently in manuscripts of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate. In these various witnesses the wording of the passage differs in several particulars. (For examples of other intrusions into the Latin text of 1 John, see 2.17; 4.3; 5.6, and 20.)

(B) Internal Probabilities.
(1) As regards transcriptional probability, if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.

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

For the story of how the spurious words came to be included in the Textus Receptus, see any critical commentary on 1 John, or Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, pp. 101 f.; cf. also Ezra Abbot, “I. John v. 7 and Luther’s German Bible,” in The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays (Boston, 1888), pp. 458–463.

Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (647). London; New York: United Bible Societies.

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

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

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

SRoper · #20 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008, 01:16 PM

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

CalvinandHodges · #21 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008, 01:22 PM

Hi:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grace and Peace,

Rob

VirginiaHuguenot · #22 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008, 01:39 PM

Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended:

Quote:

3. The Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7)

In the Textus Receptus 1 John 5:7-8 reads as follows:

7 For there are three that bear witness IN HEAVEN, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT: AND THESE THREE ARE ONE. 8 AND THERE ARE THREE THAT BEAR WITNESS IN EARTH, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

The words printed in capital letters constitute the so-called Johannine comma, the best known of the Latin Vulgate readings of the Textus Receptus, a reading which, on believing principles, must be regarded as possibly genuine. This comma has been the occasion of much controversy and is still an object of interest to textual critics. One of the more recent discussions of it is found in Windisch's Katholischen Briefe (revised by Preisker, 1951); (26) a more accessible treatment of it in English is that provided by A. D. Brooke (1912) in the International Critical Commentary. (27) Metzger (1964) also deals with this passage in his handbook, but briefly. (28)

(a) How the Johannine Comma Entered the Textus Receptus

As has been observed above, the Textus Receptus has both its human aspect and its divine aspect, like the Protestant Reformation itself or any other work of God's providence. And when we consider the manner in which the Johannine comma entered the Textus Receptus, we see this human element at work. Erasmus omitted the Johannine comma from the first edition (1516) of his printed Greek New Testament on the ground that it occurred only in the Latin version and not in any Greek manuscript. To quiet the outcry that arose, he agreed to restore it if but one Greek manuscript could be found which contained it. When one such manuscript was discovered soon afterwards, bound by his promise, he included the disputed reading in his third edition (1522), and thus it gained a permanent place in the Textus Receptus. The manuscript which forced Erasmus to reverse his stand seems to have been 61, a 15th or 16th-century manuscript now kept at Trinity College, Dublin. Many critics believe that this manuscript was written at Oxford about 1520 for the special purpose of refuting Erasmus, and this is what Erasmus himself suggested in his notes.

The Johannine comma is also found in Codex Ravianus, in the margin of 88, and in 629. The evidence of these three manuscripts, however, is not regarded as very weighty, since the first two are thought to have taken this disputed reading from early printed Greek texts and the latter (like 61) from the Vulgate.

But whatever may have been the immediate cause, still, in the last analysis, it was not trickery which was responsible for the inclusion of the Johannine comma in the Textus Receptus but the usage of the Latin-speaking Church. It was this usage which made men feel that this.reading ought to be included in the Greek text and eager to keep it there after its inclusion had been accomplished. Back of this usage, we may well believe, was the guiding providence of God, and therefore the Johannine comma ought to be retained as at least possibly genuine.

(b) The Early Existence of the Johannine Comma

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

The first undisputed citations of the Johannine comma occur in the writing of two 4th-century Spanish bishops, Priscillian, (32) who in 385 was beheaded by the Emperor Maximus on the charge of sorcery and heresy, and Idacius Clarus, (33) Priscillian's principal adversary and accuser. In the 5th century the Johannine comma was quoted by several orthodox African writers to defend the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals, who ruled North Africa from 489 to 534 and were fanatically attached to the Arian heresy. (34) And about the same time it was cited by Cassiodorus (480-570), in Italy. (35) The comma is also found in r an Old Latin manuscript of the 5th or 6th century, and in the Speculum, a treatise which contains an Old Latin text. It was not included in Jerome's original edition of the Latin Vulgate but around the year 800 it was taken into the text of the Vulgate from the Old Latin manuscripts. It was found in the great mass of the later Vulgate manuscripts and in the Clementine edition of the Vulgate, the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church.

(c) Is the Johannine Comma an Interpolation?

Thus on the basis of the external evidence it is at least possible that the Johannine comma is a reading that somehow dropped out of the Greek New Testament text but was preserved in the Latin text through the usage of the Latin-speaking Church, and this possibility grows more and more toward probability as we consider the internal evidence.

In the first place, how did the Johannine comma originate if it be not genuine, and how did it come to be interpolated into the Latin New Testament text? To this question modern scholars have a ready answer. It arose, they say, as a trinitarian interpretation of I John 5:8, which originally read as follows: For there are three that bear witness the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. Augustine was one of those who interpreted 1 John 5:8 as referring to the Trinity. "If we wish to inquire about these things, what they signify, not absurdly does the Trinity suggest Itself, who is the one, only, true, and highest God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, concerning whom it could most truly be said, Three are Witnesses, and the Three are One. By the word spirit we consider God the Father to be signified, concerning the worship of whom the Lord spoke, when He said, God is a spirit. By the word blood the Son is signified, because the Word was made flesh. And by the word water we understand the Holy Spirit. For when Jesus spoke concerning the water which He was about to give the thirsty, the evangelist says, This He spake concerning the Spirit whom those that believed in Him would receive. " (36)

Thus, according to the critical theory, there grew up in the Latin speaking regions of ancient Christendom a trinitarian interpretation of the spirit, the water, and the blood mentioned in 1 John 5:8, the spirit signifying the Father, the blood the Son, and the water the Holy Spirit And out of this trinitarian interpretation of 1 John 5:8 developed the Johannine comma, which contrasts the witness of the Holy Trinity in heaven with the witness of the spirit, the water, and the blood on earth.

But just at this point the critical theory encounters a serious difficulty. If the comma originated in a trinitarian interpretation of 1 John 5:8, why does it not contain the usual trinitarian formula, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Why does it exhibit the singular combination, never met with elsewhere, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit? According to some critics, this unusual phraseology was due to the efforts of the interpolator who first inserted the Johannine comma into the New Testament text. In a mistaken attempt to imitate the style of the Apostle John, he changed the term Son to the term Word. But this is to attribute to the interpolator a craftiness which thwarted his own purpose in making this interpolation, which was surely to uphold the doctrine of the Trinity, including the eternal generation of the Son. With this as his main concern it is very unlikely that he would abandon the time-honored formula, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and devise an altogether new one, Father, Word, and Holy Spirit.

In the second place, the omission of the Johannine comma seems to leave the passage incomplete. For it is a common scriptural usage to present solemn truths or warnings in groups of three or four, for example, the repeated Three things, yea four of Proverbs 30, and the constantly recurring refrain, for three transgressions and for four, of the prophet Amos. In Genesis 40 the butler saw three branches and the baker saw three baskets. And in Matt. 12:40 Jesus says, As Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. It is in accord with biblical usage, therefore, to expect that in 1 John 5:7-8 the formula, there are three that bear witness, will be repeated at least twice. When the Johannine comma is included, the formula is repeated twice. When the comma is omitted, the formula is repeated only once, which seems strange.

In the third place, the omission of the Johannine comma involves a grammatical difficulty. The words spirit, water, and blood are neuter in gender, but in 1 John 5:8 they are treated as masculine. If the Johannine comma is rejected, it is hard to explain this irregularity. It is usually said that in 1 John 5:8 the spirit, the water, and the blood are personalized and that this is the reason for the adoption of the masculine gender. But it is hard to see how such personalization would involve the change from the neuter to the masculine. For in verse 6 the word Spirit plainly refers to the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity. Surely in this verse the word Spirit is "personalized," and yet the neuter gender is used. Therefore since personalization did not bring about a change of gender in verse 6, it cannot fairly be pleaded as the reason for such a change in verse 8. If, however, the Johannine comma is retained, a reason for placing the neuter nouns spirit, water, and blood in the masculine gender becomes readily apparent. It was due to the influence of the nouns Father and Word, which are masculine. Thus the hypothesis that the Johannine comma is an interpolation is full of difficulties.

(d) Reasons for the Possible Omission of the Johannine Comma

For the absence of the Johannine comma from all New Testament documents save those of the Latin-speaking West the following explanations are possible.

In the first place, it must be remembered that the comma could easily have been omitted accidentally through a common type of error which is called homoioteleuton (similar ending). A scribe copying 1 John 5:7-8 under distracting conditions might have begun to write down these words of verse 7, there are three that bear witness, but have been forced to look up before his pen had completed this task. When he resumed his work, his eye fell by mistake on the identical expression in verse 8. This error would cause him to omit all of the Johannine comma except the words in earth, and these might easily have been dropped later in the copying of this faulty copy. Such an accidental omission might even have occurred several times, and in this way there might have grown up a considerable number of Greek manuscripts which did not contain this reading.

In the second place, it must be remembered that during the 2nd and 3rd centuries (between 220 and 270, according to Harnack); (37) the heresy which orthodox Christians were called upon to combat was not Arianism (since this error had not yet arisen) but Sabellianism (so named after Sabellius, one of its principal promoters), according to which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were one in the sense that they were identical. Those that advocated this heretical view were called Patripassians (Father-sufferers), because they believed that God the Father, being identical with Christ, suffered and died upon the cross, and Monarchians, because they claimed to uphold the Monarchy (sole-government) of God.

It is possible, therefore, that the Sabellian heresy brought the Johannine comma into disfavor with orthodox Christians. The statement, these three are one, no doubt seemed to them to teach the Sabellian view that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit were identical. And if during the course of the controversy manuscripts were discovered which had lost this reading in the accidental manner described above, it is easy to see how the orthodox party would consider these mutilated manuscripts to represent the true text and regard the Johannine comma as a heretical addition. In the Greek-speaking East especially the comma would be unanimously rejected, for here the struggle against Sabellianism was particularly severe.

Thus it was not impossible that during the 3rd century amid the stress and strain of the Sabellian controversy, the Johannine comma lost its place in the Greek text, but was preserved in the Latin texts of Africa and Spain, where the influence of Sabellianism was probably not so great. In other words, it is not impossible that the Johannine comma was one of those few true readings of the Latin Vulgate not occurring in the Traditional Greek Text but incorporated into the Textus Receptus under the guiding providence of God. In these rare instances God called upon the usage of the Latin-speaking Church to correct the usage of the Greek speaking Church. (38)

JM · #23 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008, 02:19 PM

Quote:

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

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

Archlute · #24 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SRoper

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

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

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

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

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

**KMK** · #25 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archlute

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

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

JohnGill · #26 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nicnap

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimV

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

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

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

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

Are you using the 3rd Edition?

And yes the Comma is genuine.

VirginiaHuguenot · #27 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JM

Quote:

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

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

Cyprian, De Catholic eccleiae unitate, c.6:

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

Facundus, Pro defensione trium capit. i.3:

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

Archlute · #28 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

The actual quote from De Jong reads thus:

Quote:

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

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

Grace and Peace,

-Rob

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

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

JM · #29 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008, 02:46 PM

Can we get a translation? lol

JohnGill · #30 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges

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

From Gill's Exposition which is online:

Quote:

1 John 5:7

Ver. 7. For there are three that bear record in heaven,.... That is, that Jesus is the Son of God. The genuineness of this text has been called in question by some, because it is wanting in the Syriac version, as it also is in the Arabic and Ethiopic versions; and because the old Latin interpreter has it not; and it is not to be found in many Greek manuscripts; nor cited by many of the ancient fathers, even by such who wrote against the Arians, when it might have been of great service to them: to all which it may be replied, that as to the Syriac version, which is the most ancient, and of the greatest consequence, it is but a version, and a defective one. The history of the adulterous woman in the eighth of John, the second epistle of Peter, the second and third epistles of John, the epistle of Jude, and the book of the Revelations, were formerly wanting in it, till restored from Bishop Usher's copy by De Dieu and Dr. Pocock, and who also, from an eastern copy, has supplied this version with this text. As to the old Latin interpreter, it is certain it is to be seen in many Latin manuscripts of an early date, and stands in the Vulgate Latin edition of the London Polyglot Bible: and the Latin translation, which bears the name of Jerom, has it, and who, in an epistle of his to Eustochium, prefixed to his translation of these canonical epistles, complains of the omission of it by unfaithful interpreters. And as to its being wanting in some Greek manuscripts, as the Alexandrian, and others, it need only be said, that it is to be found in many others; it is in an old British copy, and in the Complutensian edition, the compilers of which made use of various copies; and out of sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephens's, nine of them had it: and as to its not being cited by some of the ancient fathers, this can be no sufficient proof of the spuriousness of it, since it might be in the original copy, though not in the copies used by them, through the carelessness or unfaithfulness of transcribers; or it might be in their copies, and yet not cited by them, they having Scriptures enough without it, to defend the doctrine of the Trinity, and the divinity of Christ: and yet, after all, certain it is, that it is cited by many of them; by Fulgentius {z}, in the beginning of the "sixth" century, against the Arians, without any scruple or hesitation; and Jerom, as before observed, has it in his translation made in the latter end of the "fourth" century; and it is cited by Athanasius {a} about the year 350; and before him by Cyprian {b}, in the middle, of the "third" century, about the year 250; and is referred to by Tertullian {c} about, the year 200; and which was within a "hundred" years, or little more, of the writing of the epistle; which may be enough to satisfy anyone of the genuineness of this passage; and besides, there never was any dispute about it till Erasmus left it out in the, first edition of his translation of the New Testament; and yet he himself, upon the credit of the old British copy before mentioned, put it into another edition of his translation. The heavenly witnesses of Christ's sonship are,

the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. The "Father" is the first Person, so called, not in, reference to the creatures, angels, or men, he is the Creator, and so the Father of; for this is common to the other two Persons; but in reference to his Son Jesus Christ, of whose sonship he bore witness at his baptism and transfiguration upon the mount. The "Word" is the second Person, who said and it was done; who spoke all things out of nothing in the first creation; who was in the beginning with God the Father, and was God, and by whom all things were created; he declared himself to be the Son of God, and proved himself to be so by his works and miracles; see
Mr 14:61, &c. and his witness of himself was good and valid; see Joh 8:13; and because it is his sonship that is, here testified of, therefore the phrase, "the Word", and not "the Son", is here used. "The Holy Ghost" is the third Person, who proceeds from the Father, and is also called the Spirit of the Son, who testified of, Christ's sonship also at his baptism, by descending on him as a dove, which was the signal given to John the Baptist, by which he knew him, and bare record of him, that he was the Son of God. Now the number of these witnesses was three, there being so many persons in the Godhead; and such a number being sufficient, according to law, for the establishing of any point: to which may be added, that they were witnesses in heaven, not to the heavenly inhabitants, but to men on earth; they were so called, because they were in heaven, and from thence gave out their testimony; and which shows the firmness and excellency of it, it being not from earth, but from heaven, and not human, but divine; to which may be applied the words of Job, in Job 16:19; it follows,

and these three are one; which is to be understood, not only of their unity and agreement in their testimony, they testifying of the same thing, the sonship of Christ; but of their unity in essence or nature, they being the one God. So that, this passage holds forth and asserts the unity of God, a trinity of persons in the Godhead, the proper deity of each person, and their distinct personality, the unity of essence in that they are one; a trinity of persons in that they are three, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and are neither more nor fewer; the deity of each person, for otherwise their testimony would not be the testimony of God, as in 1Jo 5:9; and their distinct personality; for were they not three distinct persons, they could not be three testifiers, or three that bare record. This being a proper place, I shall insert the faith of the ancient Jews concerning the doctrine of the Trinity; and the rather, as it agrees with the apostle's doctrine in words and language, as well as in matter. They call the three Persons in the Godhead three degrees: they say {d},

"Jehovah, Elohenu (our God), Jehovah, De 6:4; these are the three degrees with respect to this sublime mystery, in the beginning Elohim, or God, created, Ge 1:1, &c.''

And these three, they say, though they are distinct, yet are one, as appears by what follows {e}:

"come see the mystery of the word; there are three degrees, and every degree is by itself, yet they are all one, and are bound together in one, and one is not separated from the other.''

Again, it is said {f},

"this is the unity of Jehovah the first, Elohenu, Jehovah, lo, all of them are one, and therefore: called one; lo, the three names are as if they were one, and therefore are called one, and they are one; but by the revelation of the Holy Spirit it is made known, and they by the sight of the eye may be known, dxa Nyla atltd, "that these three are one": and this is the mystery of the voice which is heard; the voice is one, and there are three things, fire, and Spirit, and water, and all of them are one in the mystery of the voice, and they are but one: so here, Jehovah, Elohenu, Jehovah, they are one, the three, Nynwwg, forms, modes, or things, which are one.''

Once more {g},

"there are two, and one is joined unto them, and they are three; and when the three are one, he says to them, these are the two names which Israel heard, Jehovah, Jehovah, and Elohenu is joined unto them, and it is the seal of the ring of truth; and when they are joined as one, they are one in one unity.''

And this they illustrate by the three names of the soul of man {h};

"the three powers are all of them one, the soul, spirit, and breath, they are joined as one, and they are one; and all is according to the mode of the sublime mystery,''

meaning the Trinity.

"Says R. Isaac {i} worthy are the righteous in this world, and in the world to come, for lo, the whole of them is holy, their body is holy, their soul is holy, their Spirit is holy, their breath is holy, holy are these three degrees "according to the form above".--Come see these three degrees cleave together as one, the soul, Spirit, and breath.''

The three first Sephirot, or numbers, in the Cabalistic tree, intend the three divine Persons; the first is called the chief crown, and first glory, which essence no creature can comprehend {k}, and designs the Father, Joh 1:18; the second is called wisdom, and the intelligence illuminating, the crown of the creation, the brightness of equal unity, who is exalted above every head; and he is called, by the Cabalists, the second glory {l}; see 1Co 1:24 Heb 1:3. This is the Son of God: the third is called understanding sanctifying, and is the foundation of ancient wisdom, which is called the worker of faith; and he is the parent of faith, and from his power faith flows {m}; and this is the Holy Spirit; see 1Pe 1:2. Now they say {n} that these three first numbers are intellectual, and are not twdm, "properties", or "attributes", as the other seven are. R. Simeon ben Jochai says {o},

"of the three superior numbers it is said, Ps 62:11, "God hath spoken once, twice have I heard this"; one and two, lo the superior numbers of whom it is said, one, one, one, three ones, and this is the mystery of Ps 62:11.''

Says R. Judah Levi {p},

"behold the mystery of the numberer, the number, and the numbered; in the bosom of God it is one thing, in the bosom of man three; because he weighs with his understanding, and speaks with his mouth, and writes with his hand.''

It was usual with the ancient Jews to introduce Jehovah speaking, or doing anything, in this form, I and my house of judgment; and it is a rule with them, that wherever it is said, "and Jehovah", he and his house or judgment are intended {q}; and Jarchi frequently makes use of this phrase to explain texts where a plurality in the Godhead is intended, as Ge 1:26; and it is to be observed, that a house of judgment, or a sanhedrim, among the Jews, never consisted of less than three. They also had used to write the word "Jehovah" with three "Jods", in the form of a triangle,

y
y y

as representing the three divine Persons: one of their more modern {r} writers has this observation on the blessing of the priest in Nu 6:24:

"these three verses begin with a "Jod", in reference to the three "Jods" which we write in the room of the name, (i.e. Jehovah,) for they have respect to the three superior things.''

{z} Respons. contr. Arian. obj. 10. & de Trinitate, c. 4. {a} Contr. Arium, p. 109. {b} De Unitate Eccles. p. 255. & in Ep. 73. ad Jubajan, p. 184. {c} Contr. Praxeam, c. 25. {d} Zohar in Gen. fol. 1. 3. {e} Ib. in Lev. fol. 27. 2. {f} Ib. in Exod. fol. 18. 3, 4. {g} lb. in Numb. fol. 67. 3. {h} lb. in Exod. fol. 73. 4. {i} lb. in Lev. fol. 29. 2. {k} Sepher Jetzira, Semit. 1. {l} Sepher Jetzira, Semit. 2. {m} Ib. Semit. 3. {n} R. Menachem apud Rittangel. in Jetzira, p. 193. {o} Tikkune Zohar apud ib. p. 64. {p} Apud ib. p. 38. {q} Zohar in Gen. fol. 48. 4. Jarchi in Gen. xix. 24. Vid. T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 6. 1. & Gloss. in ib. & Sanhedrin, fol. 3. 2. {r} R. Abraham Seba in Tzeror Hammor, fol. 113. 2.

VirginiaHuguenot · #31 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JM

Can we get a translation? lol

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

Archlute · #32 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMK

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

How so?

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

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

nicnap · #33 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnGill

Quote:

Originally Posted by nicnap

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimV

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

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

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

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

Are you using the 3rd Edition?

And yes the Comma is genuine.

The 3rd Edition...sorry.

VirginiaHuguenot · #34 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008, 03:25 PM

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

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

Jerusalem Blade · #35 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008, 03:58 PM

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

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

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

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

Nolan has shown a) the power of Eusebius to edit the texts for “use in doctrine”, b) the will – motive – to do so (believing his act would benefit the church), and c) the “textual fingerprints” of this omission pointing to his very own manuscripts. (This from an earlier discussion of Emperor Constantine’s commission to Eusebius to produce 50 Bibles for him after the destruction of many Scriptures during Diocletian’s persecution, and the theological pressures upon him during this production.)

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

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

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

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

Nolan then renders these disputed Scriptures in the two languages, as well as the texts from which they have been removed. He continues,

In proceeding to estimate the respective merit of these readings, the first attention is due to the internal evidence. In reasoning from it, we work upon solid ground. For the authenticity of some parts of verses in dispute we have that strong evidence which arises from universal consent; all manuscripts and translations supporting some part of the context of the contested passages. In the remaining parts we are given a choice between two readings, one only of which can be authentick. And in making our election, we have, in the common principles of plain sense and ordinary language, a certain rule by which we may be directed. Gross solecisms in the grammatical structure, palpable oversights in the texture of sense, cannot be ascribed to the inspired authors. If of any two given readings one be exposed to such objections, there is but the alternative, that the other must be authentick. [3]

He continues with a close scrutiny of the selected passages in their respective Greek and Latin: Acts 20:28, 1 Timothy 3:16, and 1 John 5:7, examining both the sense of the passages in their contexts, and the grammar. As may be understood by those considering the grammar of the passage 1 John 5:6 and 5:8 when verse 7 is omitted, it is incorrect, but is perfect when 7 is included. But this is not all. Later in his work investigating the integrity of the Greek Vulgate (Received Text), he presents positive external evidence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

…I shall now venture to conclude, that the doctrinal integrity of the Greek Vulgate is established, in the vindication of these passages. It has been my endeavor to rest it upon its natural basis; the testimony of the two Churches, in the eastern and western world, in whose keeping the sacred trust was reposed…[4] [Bold emphasis added.]

In this unusual demonstration Frederick Nolan has shown how major portions of the Christian Church did not lose the use – the presence – of this verse in their Bibles. It is clear this is not a “well-meant” but unlawful addition to God’s Word, but a part of it that stood in John’s 1st Epistle from the beginning.

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

Another point to which the author has directed his attention, has been the old Italick translation…on this subject, the author perceived, without any labour of inquiry, that it derived its name from that diocese, which has been termed the Italick, as contradistinguished from the Roman. This is a supposition, which receives a sufficient confirmation from the fact,—that the principal copies of that version have been preserved in that diocese, the metropolitan church of which was situated in Milan. The circumstance is at present mentioned, as the authour thence formed a hope, that some remains of the primitive Italick version might be found in the early translations made by the Waldenses, who were the lineal descendants of the Italick Church; and who have asserted their independence against the usurpations of the Church of Rome, and have ever enjoyed the free use of the Scriptures. In the search to which these considerations have led the authour, his fondest expectations have been fully realized. It has furnished him with abundant proof on that point to which his Inquiry was chiefly directed; as it has supplied him with the unequivocal testimony of a truly apostolical branch of the primitive church, that the celebrated text of the heavenly witnesses was adopted in the version which prevailed in the Latin Church, previously to the introduction of the Modern Vulgate. [5] [emphasis added]

In a lengthy footnote at this point, he documents the progress of the text of this primitive Italick version up into the mountain communities of the Waldenses and into the French language in a number of texts, and he states, “It thus easily made its way into Wicklef’s translation, through the Lollards, who were disciples of the Waldenses.” [6]
-----------
1 Inquiry Into the Integrity Of the Greek Vulgate, Or Received Text Of the New Testament; in which the Greek Manuscripts are newly classed; the Integrity of the Authorised Text vindicated; and the Various Readings traced to their Origin, by Fredrick Nolan ((London: F.C. and J. Rivington, 1815), pages 38, 39, 40, 41. Reprint available at Bible for Today ministry (see bibliography above). Nolan’s complete book online (save Preface): An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate
2 Ibid., pages 252-253.
3 Ibid., pages 254-255
4 Ibid., pages 291, 292, 293-305, 306.
5 Ibid., pages xvii, xviii.
6 Ibid., Footnote #1, pages xviii, xix.

**KMK** · #36 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archlute

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMK

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

How so?

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

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

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 · #37 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerusalem Blade

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

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

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

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

Archlute · #38 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMK

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archlute

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMK

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

How so?

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

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

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. FWIW, most variants have no real impact upon a passage, and it is only the few such as the ending of Mark, or the "Johannine Comma" that ever really raise a stir.

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

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

**py3ak** · #39 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008, 09:47 PM

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

**KMK** · #40 (**permalink**) 09-13-2008, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archlute

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMK

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archlute

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. FWIW, 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.