1 John 5:8 -- Forgery?

[mdvaden]

As someone has said you got it backward. I'm not aware of any mansuscript taht does not have verse 8. But I would be interested in what source you got this information from.

The verses I copied and pasted were direct from my bible software. They are in the same order as my written King James bible.

I could not find the source in my interlinear. Some books I left in Portland.

But in my Companion Bible written by E. W. Bullinger, the footnotes say that the words in verse 1 John 5:7 that are "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are on. (8) And there are three that bear witness in earth"

He says that those words exist in no Greek text prior to the 16th century and were first seen in margins of some Latin copies. He said "Thence they have crept into the text".

Love the "crept" into the text comment.

My biblical note in my bible may have been a bit weathered, but I rembered that there was at least one major man-made change to the text in these two verses if not 2 or 3 alterations.

 

[oldsage]

Not modern editions. Consult your Novum Testamentum and you'll see vg^mss and the phrase in latin: in terra, spiritus et aqua et sanguis et tres sunt, qui testimonium di**** in caelo, pater, verbum et spiritus et hi tres unum sunt.

Right, this is prior to Jerome's translation, I think it follow the Spanish latin version. Not the Official Latin Vulgate of the Church

Chris

 

[PreacherMan4U]

I will leave it at this ... You may call it scribal error, you may call it text glossing, you may call it forgery. However, my God is powerful enough to keep His word , that is necessary to us, complete in every way. So that His work will be accomplished.

May The Lord Bless You,
Mike

 

[mdvaden]

You may call it scribal error, you may call it text glossing, you may call it forgery. However, my God is powerful enough to keep His word , that is necessary to us, complete in every way. So that His work will be accomplished.

No doubt about that - God always keeps His Word complete in His knowledge.

It's man that gets into difficulties.

Either man looses it so it has to like Jeremiah said "thy words were found" - or lost in understanding like where the book of Nehemiah says they caused the people to understand.

And people can misunderstand it or forsake it so they need the doctrine, reproof and correction spoken of in 2 Timothy 3:17

I heard an excellent comment by a minister once. He said "the Word is always in danger" - and he meant the written Word in danger of man loosing it in some fashion.

The entire bible shows mankind loosing the word in teaching if not in writing.

 

[Odsolo]

[SIZE=-1]It has been documented that when Erasmus was working to complete his Greek text he was approached by representatives of the church and asked to include 1 John 5:7 to strengthen the position on the doctirne of the Trinity. His initial response was that the verse was not in any of the Greek manuscripts in his possession. They insisted that it be included despite this. He responded that if they could provide him with a Greek manuscript that included the verse, then he would do so.

It is reported that they returned shortly with a new fragment that had the portion of 1 John 5 and that it included verse seven. Despite the fact that it was obvious to Erasmas that they ink wasn't even dry, he conceded to their "request" and included the verse. The only texts that include this passage are manuscripts which are dated ater Erasmas' work.[/SIZE]

No I am sorry no such thing is documented. That is a common myth that has been told and retold until it has a life of its own and it grows more each time. Note this first link. The exact same thng is said of Tyndale and his translation.

Tyndale promise.

http://www.sundaylaw.net/books/other/standish/bibletrans/mbtu26.htm
​

See refutation of your statement below.

Erasmus' role in the debate over these verses had been distorted by enemies of the AV. The standard position that liberals assume reads something as follows, given by AV-critic James White:

"When the first edition of Erasmus' work came out in 1516 . . . (I John 5:7,8) was not in the text for a very simple reason: it was not found in any Greek manuscript of I John that Erasmus had examined. Instead, the phrase was found only in the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus rightly did not include it in the first or second editions. The note in the Annotations simply said, 'In the Greek codex I find only this about the threefold testimony: 'because there are three witnesses, spirit, water and blood.' ' His reliance upon the Greek manuscripts caused quite a stir . . . Since Erasmus had promised, in his response to Edward Lee, to include the passage should a Greek manuscript be found that contained it, he was constrained to insert the phrase in the third edition when presented with an Irish manuscript that contained the disputed phrase." (4)

This is furthered by Stewart Custer of Bob Jones University:

"Now Erasmus made a rash promise. He said, 'If you can show me a Greek manuscript that has the text in it, I will print it there' . . . They went back and summoned their scribes and got them to translate the Latin Vulgate into Greek and put that verse in. (It) came right back to him. The ink was hardly dry on the manuscript . . . those two manuscripts are 61 . . . the date is 16th century, the time of Erasmus. The other one is 629 . . . Those are the only two manuscripts out of those 5000 that have verse 7 in it . . . Told him frankly that if he didn't put that verse in, they'd excommunicate him. He, being a good Roman Catholic, put it in." (5)

Both White and Custer are in error! Now for the facts:

1. On the "fact" that Erasmus made a rash promise, this was demonstrated to be false. This remark is one of the cherished legends about the history of New Testament scholarship. It is no more than a legend. Erasmus did not put the verses in his third edition on the basis of any supposed promise to Edward Lee. (6) Even Bruce Metzger admitted that Erasmus' "promise" 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. (7)

2. Was the ink hardly dry on 61, as Custer claimed? Erasmus didn't see it until a year after it was produced. Custer simply exaggerated. (8)

3. What of Custer's claim that there were only 2 manuscripts that contained the verse? R.E. Brown said a year earlier than Custer (1982) that there were 8 manuscripts. And it wasn't "5000" manuscripts as Custer claimed for, as of 1982, only 498 Greek manuscripts had been examined and in eight of them, the verses are found. (9) How could Custer assume the other 4500 manuscripts did not have the verses?

4. Was Erasmus threatened with excommunication? No evidence exists of it (10) because by the time of the third edition, he had found sufficient evidence to include it. Erasmus initially defended his omission of the verses as late as October, 1524. He had changed his views sometime between 1522-1527. (11)

http://watch.pair.com/erasmus.html

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.

177 AD A Plea for Christians by Athengoras the Athenian: Philosopher and Christian.

"Who, then, would not be ashamed to hear men speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their distinction in order."

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-46.htm#P2139_587041
​

Above, 1 John 5:7 alluded to, 177 AD. Below, 1 John 5:7 quoted directly, 250 AD.

Cyprian 250 AD Treatise I On The Unity of the church.

The Lord says, "I and the Father are one; " and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, "And these three are one." And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? He who does not hold this unity does not hold God's law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-111.htm#P6832_2190664
​

 

[Just Me Garry]

Why would anyone want to believe a corrupt Alexandrian manuscript anyway. I mean Westcott-Hort had tried to corrupt the original manuscripts anyway. I wonder if Orgien was their teacher.

I will stick to the King James Version myself. Jesus said that if any man take away or add to his word the plagues of Revelation would be upon him.

 

[Odsolo]

He says that those words exist in no Greek text prior to the 16th century and were first seen in margins of some Latin copies. He said "Thence they have crept into the text".

Love the "crept" into the text comment.

My biblical note in my bible may have been a bit weathered, but I rembered that there was at least one major man-made change to the text in these two verses if not 2 or 3 alterations.

I have omitted everything after the 14th century. As I said the critics can't reach a consensus if the comma was supposedly added in the 14th, 15th or 16th century. They also can't agree how many mansucripts it supposedly is in, 8, 12, 16 or more.

COMPLETE LIST OF NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS THAT VERIFY
1 JOHN 5:7

Note 1: 1 John 5:7-8 fits the immediate context; in fact, it is an indispensable component of the surrounding verses. Metzger, in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, argues that "as regards intrinsic probability, the passage [The Johannine Comma] makes an awkward break in the sense." [1] Upon close examination of the immediate context, however, one finds that this assertion is far from true.For example, if the Comma is omitted, verse 6 and verse 8 are thrown together, "which gives a very bald, awkward, and meaningless repetition of the Spirit's witness twice in immediate succession." [2] Furthermore, the omission causes the concluding phrase of verse 8 (and these three agree in one) to contain an unintelligible reference. [3] What is "that one" (to en) to which "these three" are said to agree?In other words, "that one" in verse 8 which designates One to whom the reader has already been introduced does not have antecedent presence in the passage."Let verse 7 stand, and all is clear, and the three earthly witnesses testify to that aforementioned unity which the Father, Word, and Spirit constitute."[4] The passage makes absolutely no sense if the Comma is omitted.The phrase "in earth" in verse 8 as well as the entire ninth verse would also have to be knocked out to regain the sense because both infer that the "witness of God," as promulgated in the Comma, has already been introduced.

168 A.D. Theophilus used the word "trinity" in his letter to Autolycus. Written in Greek. Theophilus became bishop of Antioch.

177 A.D. A writing in Greek---Anti-Nicene Fathers Apologia of Athenagoras presented to Roman emperors. "Who, then, would not be ashamed to hear men speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their distinction in order."

215 A.D. (25:1; CC2, 1195) Tertullian. Adversus Praxean per RB "And so the connection of the Father, and the Son, and of the Paraclete makes three cohering entities, one cohering from the other, which three are one entity" refers to the unity of their substance, not to the oneness of their number.

250 A.D. The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translation of the Writings of the Church Fathers down to A.D. 325 CYPRIAN. De catholicae ecclesiae unitate. (CSEL 3:215) The LORD says "I and the Father are one" and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. "And these three are one." NOTE: Cyprian is regarded as one "who quotes copiously and textually." Further, the interpolation "In Christo Jesu" does not yet appear. note: Cyprian also quoted Acts 8:37

380A.D. PRISCILLIAN verify here Liber Apologeticus As John says "and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus."

385 A.D. GREGORY OF NAZANZIUS Theological Orations, His fifth oration was "On the Holy Spirit"

390A.D. JEROME prologue to the Canonical Epistles "si ab interpretibus fideliter in latinum eloquium verterentur nec ambiguitatem legentibus facerent nec trinitatis unitate in prima joannis epistola positum legimus, in qua etiam, trium tantummodo vocabula hoc est aquae, sanguinis et spiritus in ipsa sua editione ponentes et patris verbique ac aspiritus testimoninum omittentes, in quo maxime et fides catholica roboratur, et patris et filii et spirtus sancti una divinitatis substantia comprobatur." note: this manuscript also included Acts 8:37

450 A.D. Anchor Bible; Epistle of John, 782 Contra Varimadum 1.5 (CC90,20-21) "And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, The Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one."

450 A.D. De divinis Scripturis suie Speculum
(A collection of statements and precepts drawn from the Old Latin Bible (both Old and New Testaments). It has been attributed to Augustine, but this is not likely. Aland dates it c. 427. Except in editions associated with the Alands, it is usually cited as m of the Old Latin. In Paul at least, the text seems to be generally more primitive than the European Latin of the bilingual uncials. In the Catholics, it has many links with the text of Priscillian.)
Latin MS, also known as "m" "and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one."note: this manuscript also included Acts 8:37

484 A.D. Victor of Vita Historia persecutionis Africanae prov. 2.82[3.11], CSEL7, 60

485 A.D. Victor Vitensis Historia persecutionis Africanae Provinciae 3.11 in PL58, 227C per RB "there are three which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one."

500 A.D. Beuron 64 known as "r". (Sometimes labeled CODEX MONACENSIS) CODEX FREISINGENSIS "and the three are one which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, and the Word, and the Holy Spirit and these three are one."

527 A.D. FULGENTIUS
(Considered, after Amiatinus, the best Vulgate manuscript. Copied for and corrected by Victor of Capua. Italian text. The Gospels are in the form of a harmony (probably based on an Old Latin original, and with scattered Old Latin
readings). Includes the Epistle to the Laodiceans.)
Responsio contra Arianos (Ad 10, CC 91) RB "there are three who bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit. And the three are one being."

527 A.D. FULGENTIUS Contra Fabianum (frag. 21.4: CC 91A, 797) "There are three who bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Son and the Spirit. And the three are one being."

527 A.D. FULGENTIUS De Trinitate(1.4.1; CC91A 636), per RB "There are three who bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one being."
pre 550 A.D. JEROME prologue to the Catholic Epistles. "Preserved in the Codex Fuldensis (PL 29, 827-31)." per RB. Jerome writes in his prologue that the Comma (1John5:7-8) is genuine but has been omitted by unfaithful translators. Click here to read more about this.

570 A.D. CASSIODORUS Complexionn. in Epistt. Paulinn. "Moreover, in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one God."

583 A.D. CASSIODORUS In Epistolam S. Joannis ad Parthos. (10.5.1; PL 70, 1373A) employs "Son" in place of "Word." NOTE: Cassiodorus cited the Comma in his commentary.

636 A.D. ISIDORE of SEVILLE Testimonia divinae Scripturae 2[PL, 83, 1203C] per RB. "And there are three which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and the three are one."

650 A.D. The Leon Palimpsest, also known as "Legionensis" or Beuron 67 CODEX PAL LEGIONENSIS "and there are three which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, and the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus."

700 A.D. JAQUB of EDESSA On the Holy Eucharistic Mysteries, Syriac document "The soul and the body and the mind which are sanctified through three holy things; through water and blood and Spirit, and through the Father and the Son and the Spirit."

735 A.D. The year of the decease of Venerable Bede manuscript E (also known as Basiliensis), Greek. Located: Basel, Switzerland. Université Bibliothèque note: this manuscript also included Acts 8:37

750 A.D. harl 2 (also known as "z2" or Harleianus) Latin MS, Beuron 65, Latin Vulgate Bible all the Epistles (that to the Colossians following 2 Thessalonians and 1 John 5 - Jude crowded onto one leaf.)

850 A.D. The Ulmensis manuscript or "U" "Caroline minuscule" hand. Includes Laodiceans. Now in the British Museum. "Likewise, in heaven there are three, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and the three are one."

913 - 923 A.D. "leon 1" or Lemovicensis (dated it in the time of Ordogno II (913-923) Latin MS of the Cathedral of Leon "is a specimen of the Visigoth miniscule, and contains 1 John 5:7 - 8 in varied form."

930 A.D. Church of S. Isidore in Leon Latin MS designated as "leon 2" 1 John 5:7 - 8 is found only in the margin.

988 A.D. CODEX TOLETANUS or "T" Latin MS Note: also contains Acts 8:37a, 8:37 b, 9:5, 9:6 and 1 John 5:7.
Along with cav, the leading representative of the Spanish text. Among the earliest witnesses for "1 John 5:7-8," which it possesses in modified form. Written in a Visigothic hand, it was not new when it was given to the see of Seville in 988.

1120 A.D. An exposition of the Apostle's Creed used by the Waldenses and Albigensians "There are three that bear witness in heaven; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one."

1150 A.D. CODEX DEMIDOVIANUS Latin MS Note: contained also Acts 8:37 and 1 John 5:7 - 8.

1150 A.D. CODEX COLBERTINUS written in Languedoc, Old Latin Same as the Old Latin c of the Gospels. Often cited as Old Latin elsewhere, but the text is vulgate. The two sections are separately bound and in different hands. The Vulgate portion of the text is considered to be French.

1215 A.D. Acts of the Lateran Council Latin document "because there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one."

1250 A.D. CODEX PERPINIANUS or Latin p or Beuron 54 Latin "p"
(Old Latin in 1:1-13:6, 28:16-end. The text is said to be similar to the fourth century writer Gregory of Elvira, and is thought to have been written in northern Spain or southern France. ) "And there are three which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one." Note: also contains Acts 8:37

http://www.1john57.com/1john57.htm​

 

[oldsage]

Why would anyone want to believe a corrupt Alexandrian manuscript anyway. I mean Westcott-Hort had tried to corrupt the original manuscripts anyway. I wonder if Orgien was their teacher.

I will stick to the King James Version myself. Jesus said that if any man take away or add to his word the plagues of Revelation would be upon him.

I have yet to see any proof the KJV is the best translation and we know the majority of manuscripts do not have 1John 5:7 as the KJV has it.

Chris

 

[oldsage]

I personally have no problem with the implication of 1 John 5:7, because I am a Trinitarian. But I do not see it in the biblical text until around the time of the Protestant Reformation.

I do see it mentioned in the ECF writings of the 3rd century, but that doesn't mean it was in the text, that just means they accepted that as a teaching. I also realize that Polycarp and others call Jesus God and call the Father God and there are those that call the Holy Spirit God, so the concept was already in the church in the second century.

So, the teaching is in the bible and the traditions of the church, making it a biblical teaching but it just isn't part of the actual text of the bible.

Chris

 

[justified]

I don't think anyone here who has done the prerequisite study believed inthe legend of Erasmus' vow. However, your list of texts above is misguided.

Upon close examination of the immediate context, however, one finds that this assertion is far from true.For example, if the Comma is omitted, verse 6 and verse 8 are thrown together, "which gives a very bald, awkward, and meaningless repetition of the Spirit's witness twice in immediate succession."

This is either a lie or the guy doesn't read Greek very well. Immediately preceding verse 7 we have και το πνευμα εστιν το μαρτυρουν, οτι το πνευμα εστιν η αληθεια and the spirit is the witness, because the spirit is truth. This is not meaningless repetition of verse 7 but rather saying something different. Verses 7-8 makes a statement about all three witnesses which have been talked about: spirit, water, blood. Verse six says that Jesus Christ came δια υδατος και αιματος (by water and blood) and then emphasizes the point: ουκ εν τω υδατι μονον αλλ' εν τω υδατι και εν τω αιματι. If you want to talk about meaningless reptition, that would be the verse to do it.

Furthermore, the omission causes the concluding phrase of verse 8 (and these three agree in one) to contain an unintelligible reference. [3] What is "that one" (to en) to which "these three" are said to agree?In other words, "that one" in verse 8 which designates One to whom the reader has already been introduced does not have antecedent presence in the passage

Speaking of meaningless! The phrase is και οι τρεις εισ τον εν εισιν which does not mean only "agreeing to one" as the author of your little ditty seems to suggest. Greek is not at all that strict, and I read it as a Hebraism because it's an ancient way of saying "are one." It makes perfect sense if you know the language.

What seems to lack sense is the phrase: εν τω ουρανω, ο πατερ, ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα, και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν "in heaven, the father, the word and the holy spirit, and these three are one." My reasons:

From verse five, no one is talking about the father. The point is ο νικων, the victor, ie, ο πιστευων οτι Ιησους εστιν ο υιος του θεου...ο ελθων the one who believes that Jesus is the son of God, the one who has come. The argument is about belief in Jesus' identity as He was on earth. The proof of the incarnation is his coming δι υδατος και αιματος by water and blood (ie birth and baptism). The emphatic statement consisting of the strong adversative αλλα is critical: how does this relate? Why is it so important that the blood is there: it's because this proves the HUMAN identity of Jesus because he was BORN. Then the text launches into how one believes this: it is by the Spirit, the witness. It is a witness because the Johannine writers have the Spirit, and they it is therefore proof.

By having the trinitarian phrase, you break up the necessary correlation, have "the spirit" there twice (once as the un-johannine ton agion pneuma). Metzger is right. And so am I.

168 A.D. Theophilus used the word "trinity" in his letter to Autolycus. Written in Greek. Theophilus became bishop of Antioch.

177 A.D. A writing in Greek---Anti-Nicene Fathers Apologia of Athenagoras presented to Roman emperors. "Who, then, would not be ashamed to hear men speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their distinction in order."

215 A.D. (25:1; CC2, 1195) Tertullian. Adversus Praxean per RB "And so the connection of the Father, and the Son, and of the Paraclete makes three cohering entities, one cohering from the other, which three are one entity" refers to the unity of their substance, not to the oneness of their number.

Not a single one of these mentions the verse. No one is denying early trinitarian thought. We are denying its inclusion in the original manuscript of the epistle.

250 A.D. The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translation of the Writings of the Church Fathers down to A.D. 325 CYPRIAN. De catholicae ecclesiae unitate. (CSEL 3:215) The LORD says "I and the Father are one" and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. "And these three are one." NOTE: Cyprian is regarded as one "who quotes copiously and textually." Further, the interpolation "In Christo Jesu" does not yet appear. note: Cyprian also quoted Acts 8:37

Cyprian was reading from the vulgate-tradition. Besides, I can adduce several very early references that say "it is written" (even Paul in I Corinthians) when in fact, it is not written as such.

450 A.D. Anchor Bible; Epistle of John, 782 Contra Varimadum 1.5 (CC90,20-21) "And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, The Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one."

Who is the author of Contra Varimadum?

500 A.D. Beuron 64 known as "r". (Sometimes labeled CODEX MONACENSIS) CODEX FREISINGENSIS "and the three are one which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, and the Word, and the Holy Spirit and these three are one."

Umm....this isn't much context. But I'm pretty sure it's not Greek. As I read thorugh the rest of the list...sure enough, it's all latin.

Show me one biblical Greek manuscript before 800 AD and you might have a case. But as it is, you have nothing.

 

[Nazaroo]

This is either a lie or the guy doesn't read Greek very well.

This really is disengenious. Which is it? Why would expressing a dissenting view of the Greek syntax be 'lying'.

Once again, the salesmen for the Westcott-Hort / Nestle/Aland/UBS have been caught in a REAL DOCUMENTABLE LIE, and the smokescreen goes up, throwing mud on the opponent over merely daring to question the 'expert' opinion of the latest 'star' of the Eclectic Method of mutilating the New Testament.

It really doesn't matter about grammar once lying with deliberate intent to deceive is clearly demonstrated. The real issue is honesty, not diverse opinions, and the modern critical text defenders have been found frauds. This is no 'accident', its a propaganda engine.

Yes, the manuscripts are all Latin. But you fail to acknowledge that the majority of the Christian Church in the Holy Roman Empire was for 800 years using mainly, or virtually only Latin. Only the Eastern Orthodox were still using the Greek, and they were a minority during a period of at least 600 years. It is not a 'minority' reading at all, unless you mean 'only the Greek mss. that made it to the West during the Muslim invasions."

Your loyalty to Metzger is I suppose admirable. But loyalty to the obvious truth would be even better.

 

[justified]

Yes, the manuscripts are all Latin.

Oh, okay. So no lie...Glad we could clear this up.

Why would expressing a dissenting view of the Greek syntax be 'lying'.

It had nothing to do with Syntax. He simply wasn't reading very closely. Or well.

opinion of the latest 'star' of the Eclectic Method

Metzger is hardly the latest star. He had a book put out recently called Reminscences of an Octogenarian. For people who don't know Greek, that means 80-year-old.

But you fail to acknowledge that the majority of the Christian Church in the Holy Roman Empire was for 800 years using mainly, or virtually only Latin. Only the Eastern Orthodox were still using the Greek, and they were a minority during a period of at least 600 years. It is not a 'minority' reading at all, unless you mean 'only the Greek mss. that made it to the West during the Muslim invasions."

Let's qualify this for a second. First of all, you have codices which were made in Greek in the west up through the 10th century (Γ 036) with a real number extant coming from the 9th century (F 09.010; G 011.012; H 013.014). Not mention that many of our western-text manuscripts are from the fifth century (D 05, for example) and later (e.g. D 06). So, let's take 500 A.D. as an arbitrary point. Most of western Christianity was writing in latin and reading latin since before this, but that means nothing as far as the provenance of texts. The 7th Ecumenical Council itself wasn't until 787, so there's really a lot to be desired inyour 800-year history and terminology of the "eastern Orthodox" church. Besides, the term "Holy Roman Empire" is slightly out of line, I'd say, before Charles the Great.

The obvious truth is that our bible is in Greek. The obvious truth is that no Greek manuscript previous to 14th century includes the phrase in its text. The obvious truth is that Latin isn't good enough.

 

[Odsolo]

I don't think anyone here who has done the prerequisite study believed inthe legend of Erasmus' vow. However, your list of texts above is misguided.

Just because you might have done a little study don’t be getting in everybody’s face cuz you think you might know a little something. Someone postd the so-called "Erasmus promise" as documented fact. I was responding to that.

It seems some high powered scholars either do or did believe in it, including one of my fave’s A.T. Robertson.

This is either a lie or the guy doesn't read Greek very well. Immediately preceding verse 7 we have και το πνευμα εστιν το μαρτυρουν, οτι το πνευμα εστιν η αληθεια and the spirit is the witness, because the spirit is truth. This is not meaningless repetition of verse 7 but rather saying something different. Verses 7-8 makes a statement about all three witnesses which have been talked about: spirit, water, blood. Verse six says that Jesus Christ came δια υδατος και αιματος (by water and blood) and then emphasizes the point: ουκ εν τω υδατι μονον αλλ' εν τω υδατι και εν τω αιματι. If you want to talk about meaningless reptition, that would be the verse to do it.

A difference of opinion, about what might or might not be repetition, does not constitute a lie.

Speaking of meaningless! The phrase is και οι τρεις εισ τον εν εισιν which does not mean only "agreeing to one" as the author of your little ditty seems to suggest. Greek is not at all that strict, and I read it as a Hebraism because it's an ancient way of saying "are one." It makes perfect sense if you know the language.

Robertson taught PhD level Greek for 47 years, wrote 40+ books on Greek and the N.T., including a 1200 page grammar that took 26 years to complete, and a 6 volume Word Pictures in the N.T., which I quote here. Vincent is also a noted Greek scholar. What might your credentials be?

“I read it as a Hebraism because it's an ancient way of saying "are one." Proof?

Robertson-Agree in one (eis to hen eisin). “Are for the one thing,” to bring us to faith in Jesus as the Incarnate Son of God, the very purpose for which John wrote his Gospel (Joh_20:31).

Vincent-Agree in one (εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσι&#957
Lit., are for the one. They converge upon the one truth, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, come in the flesh.​

What seems to lack sense is the phrase: εν τω ουρανω, ο πατερ, ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα, και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν "in heaven, the father, the word and the holy spirit, and these three are one." My reasons:

From verse five, no one is talking about the father. The point is ο νικων, the victor, ie, ο πιστευων οτι Ιησους εστιν ο υιος του θεου...ο ελθων the one who believes that Jesus is the son of God, the one who has come. The argument is about belief in Jesus' identity as He was on earth. The proof of the incarnation is his coming δι υδατος και αιματος by water and blood (ie birth and baptism). The emphatic statement consisting of the strong adversative αλλα is critical: how does this relate? Why is it so important that the blood is there: it's because this proves the HUMAN identity of Jesus because he was BORN. Then the text launches into how one believes this: it is by the Spirit, the witness. It is a witness because the Johannine writers have the Spirit, and they it is therefore proof.

And if Father was in verse 7, he would be the witness.

By having the trinitarian phrase, you break up the necessary correlation, have "the spirit" there twice (once as the un-johannine ton agion pneuma). Metzger is right. And so am I.

Ah, so all that above is quoted from Metzger?

Cyprian was reading from the vulgate-tradition. Besides, I can adduce several very early references that say "it is written" (even Paul in I Corinthians) when in fact, it is not written as such.

Oh were you there with Cyprian, you know exactly what he was quoting? Whatever you can adduce is a logical fallacy.

Who is the author of Contra Varimadum?

You got google?

Umm....this isn't much context. But I'm pretty sure it's not Greek. As I read thorugh the rest of the list...sure enough, it's all latin.

And your point is?

Show me one biblical Greek manuscript before 800 AD and you might have a case. But as it is, you have nothing.

It was not my purpose to convince you of anything, that does not seem possible, you appear to know everything already. I presented other evidence, which OBTW you have far from refuted. Is there something magical about the Greek? Weren’t there some emperors somewhere that made a concerted effort to destroy Christian scriptures?

 

[oldsage]

also if we look at the history or interpretation of the time of Cyprian we see them imploying an allegorical hermeneutic, so, when Cyprian read this, his quote was his interpretation of the text.

Here is what Daniel Wallace says on this topic:

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1185

A friend recently wrote to me about the KJV reading of 1 John 5:7-8. He noted that I had not mentioned Cyprian in my essay on this text and that some KJV only folks claimed that Cyprian actually quoted the form that appears in the KJV (“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”) The question is, Did Cyprian quote a version of 1 John that had the Trinitarian formula of 1 John 5:7 in it? This would, of course, be significant, for Cyprian lived in the third century; he would effectively be the earliest known writer to quote the Comma Johanneum. Before we look at Cyprian per se, a little background is needed. The Comma occurs only in about 8 MSS, mostly in the margins, and all of them quite late. Metzger, in his Textual Commentary (2nd edition), after commenting on the Greek MS testimony, says this (p. 648):

(2) The passage is quoted in 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 ... or (c) as revised by Alcuin...

The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle [italics added] 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.

Thus, a careful distinction needs to be made between the actual text used by Cyprian and his theological interpretations. As Metzger says, the Old Latin text used by Cyprian shows no evidence of this gloss. On the other side of the ledger, however, Cyprian does show evidence of putting a theological spin on 1 John 5:7. In his De catholicae ecclesiae unitate 6, he says, “The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one’; and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one.’” What is evident is that Cyprian’s interpretation of 1 John 5:7 is that the three witnesses refer to the Trinity. Apparently, he was prompted to read such into the text here because of the heresies he was fighting (a common indulgence of the early patristic writers). Since John 10:30 triggered the ‘oneness’ motif, and involved Father and Son, it was a natural step for Cyprian to find another text that spoke of the Spirit, using the same kind of language. It is quite significant, however, that (a) he does not quote ‘of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spirit’ as part of the text; this is obviously his interpretation of ‘the Spirit, the water, and the blood.’ (b) Further, since the statement about the Trinity in the Comma is quite clear (“the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit”), and since Cyprian does not quote that part of the text, this in the least does not afford proof that he knew of such wording. One would expect him to quote the exact wording of the text, if its meaning were plain. That he does not do so indicates that a Trinitarian interpretation was superimposed on the text by Cyprian, but he did not changed the words. It is interesting that Michael Maynard, a TR advocate who has written a fairly thick volume defending the Comma (A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8 [Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995] 38), not only quotes from this passage but also speaks of the significance of Cyprian’s comment, quoting Kenyon’s Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London: Macmillan, 1912), 212: “Cyprian is regarded as one ‘who quotes copiously and textually’.” The quotation from Kenyon is true, but quite beside the point, for Cyprian’s quoted material from 1 John 5 is only the clause, “and these three are one”—the wording of which occurs in the Greek text, regardless of how one views the Comma.

Thus, that Cyprian interpreted 1 John 5:7-8 to refer to the Trinity is likely; but that he saw the Trinitarian formula in the text is rather unlikely. Further, one of the great historical problems of regarding the Comma as authentic is how it escaped all Greek witnesses for a millennium and a half. That it at first shows up in Latin, starting with Priscillian in c. 380 (as even the hard evidence provided by Maynard shows), explains why it is not found in the early or even the majority of Greek witnesses. All the historical data point in one of two directions: (1) This reading was a gloss added by Latin patristic writers whose interpretive zeal caused them to insert these words into Holy Writ; or (2) this interpretation was a gloss, written in the margins of some Latin MSS, probably sometime between 250 and 350, that got incorporated into the text by a scribe who was not sure whether it was a comment on scripture or scripture itself (a phenomenon that was not uncommon with scribes).

 

[Nazaroo]

Excellent quote here. I like Wallace, but he's a little too conservative:

Do you have anything in a light low-calorie vanilla flavour?

The main thing one gets from the evidence all taken together, is that it is quite possible that a marginal explanatory gloss got included in the Latin. That would explain the lack in the Greek.

But like all significant variants, the evidence is complex and not so probable as to be compelling for Christians or critics in one absolute way or another. There as always, is plenty of room for discussion.

Unfortunately, no matter how desirable to those wanting to 'shorten' the text in the Alexandrian style of editing, there is still no evidence of any 'conspiracies' or 'official rescensions' or theological bullying as a cause for the variant. It is best explained as a result of ordinary copying processes and modest marginal comments and a simple mix up.

The natural popular content of the variant, and its appearance of orthodoxy more than accounts for its adoption in one textual stream or another, and normal copying safeguards and independance of the textual streams late in the day (post 200 A.D.) made sure the variants were not smoothed over and did not vanish one way or another.

Both readings are old, and both readings are good. Both readings have a history, and neither reading is carved in stone.

 

[oldsage]

Excellent quote here. I like Wallace, but he's a little too conservative:

Do you have anything in a light low-calorie vanilla flavour?

The main thing one gets from the evidence all taken together, is that it is quite possible that a marginal explanatory gloss got included in the Latin. That would explain the lack in the Greek.

But like all significant variants, the evidence is complex and not so probable as to be compelling for Christians or critics in one absolute way or another. There as always, is plenty of room for discussion.

Unfortunately, no matter how desirable to those wanting to 'shorten' the text in the Alexandrian style of editing, there is still no evidence of any 'conspiracies' or 'official rescensions' or theological bullying as a cause for the variant. It is best explained as a result of ordinary copying processes and modest marginal comments and a simple mix up.

The natural popular content of the variant, and its appearance of orthodoxy more than accounts for its adoption in one textual stream or another, and normal copying safeguards and independance of the textual streams late in the day (post 200 A.D.) made sure the variants were not smoothed over and did not vanish one way or another.

Both readings are old, and both readings are good. Both readings have a history, and neither reading is carved in stone.

I personally have no problem with the teaching of the text because it supports my position as a trinitarian and I do believe it represents orthodox beliefs. I think it is a marginal insertion that happened on innocently. The conspiracy ideas creep in when fanatics think someone is trying to alter God's word and they think every variant from their perfered text is a deliberate attempt to change God's word.

I have the TR, BYZ(R-P),and the NA27 text and I can hold them all in my hand and say I have the word of God in which I can teach people and learn from. I believe that all that is sufficient for us to know is contained in any one of these documents.

Chris

 

[justified]

Robertson taught PhD level Greek for 47 years, wrote 40+ books on Greek and the N.T., including a 1200 page grammar that took 26 years to complete, and a 6 volume Word Pictures in the N.T., which I quote here. Vincent is also a noted Greek scholar. What might your credentials be?

“I read it as a Hebraism because it's an ancient way of saying "are one." Proof?



Robertson-Agree in one (eis to hen eisin). “Are for the one thing,” to bring us to faith in Jesus as the Incarnate Son of God, the very purpose for which John wrote his Gospel (Joh_20:31)

Vincent-Agree in one (εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσι&#957
Lit., are for the one. They converge upon the one truth, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, come in the flesh.

I would never ever claim to know more than Robertson in Greek with the exception of possibly on verb theory. However, easily enough my proof is exactly what you quoted from these two philologists. Robertson just read the words exactly as I did. Since this was started because I was arguing against the idea that this was "meaningless reptition" -- what does Robertson have to say on that?

Oh were you there with Cyprian, you know exactly what he was quoting? Whatever you can adduce is a logical fallacy.

Since it's easiest, I refer you to the Wallace quote above which mentions what Cyprian was reading.

Is there something magical about the Greek? Weren’t there some emperors somewhere that made a concerted effort to destroy Christian scriptures?

Indeed. And scripture comes in latin, too. The difference with the Greek is that it was the language of the originals and therefore required less interpretation. Although similar, there are some significant differences between latin and greek. Also, once you got into latin, you copied those latin mss into morelatin mss. Whereas the Greek is still being copied from the Greek. So you see, it's another whole branch of the tradition.

Unfortunately, no matter how desirable to those wanting to 'shorten' the text in the Alexandrian style of editing, there is still no evidence of any 'conspiracies' or 'official rescensions' or theological bullying as a cause for the variant. It is best explained as a result of ordinary copying processes and modest marginal comments and a simple mix up.

Oh come now...

personally have no problem with the teaching of the text because it supports my position as a trinitarian and I do believe it represents orthodox beliefs. I think it is a marginal insertion that happened on innocently. The conspiracy ideas creep in when fanatics think someone is trying to alter God's word and they think every variant from their perfered text is a deliberate attempt to change God's word.

If that's how you feel, I can think of a couple of extra books from New Testament times that you could use.

 

[oldsage]

If that's how you feel, I can think of a couple of extra books from New Testament times that you could use.

explain, please.

Chris

 

[Nazaroo]

The difference with the Greek is that it was the language of the originals and therefore required less interpretation.

...I'm sorry: right about here was where the coca-cola came out my nose.
Whew! Don't worry I'm okay now.

Matthew is hardly the language of the original.
One only has to look at a few of his incredible translating gaffs to see his Hebrew wasn't too good either.

How could anyone miss this pathetic boner:

"All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet,saying,

'Tell ye the daughter of Zion, Behold:
thy King cometh unto thee, meek,
and sitting upon an ass,
and a colt, the foal of an ass!'

And the disciples went, and did what Jesus commanded of them,
and brought the ass, and the colt(!?), and put upon them their clothes,
and they set Him there"

(across both animals? the real one and the imagined one?)

Matthew 21:4-7, the 'smoke a reefer and try to translate Hebrew poetry xlation'

An obvious complete failure to recognize the standard form of Hebrew poetry, repetition with synonymous construction. And please don't tell me there were two animals, instead of one ass translating, unfamiliar with the correct version of the story correctly translated in Luke.

You don't need a 'Q' source, only a fool of a Took trying to render Hebrew into Pidgeon Greek.

And before anyone freaks out at the thought of a mistake in Greek Matthew, 
keep in mind that [b]this is only a mistake of the [u]translator[/u][/b] of Hebrew Matthew.
[b]No such gaff is possible in the original Hebrew.[/b] 
 
Here the Greek translator has overstepped his own abilities. 
[b]There is no error in the original autographs.

[/b]

I would never ever claim to know more than Robertson in Greek with the exception of possibly on verb theory.

Comparing your advances in verb tenses with A.T. Robertson's mastery of Greek is like comparing a native Greek speaker's natural grasp of his own language in New Testament times to a Bible college graduate with a shiney new Strong's tucked under his arm.

 

[mdvaden]

Robertson taught PhD level Greek for 47 years, wrote 40+ books on Greek and the N.T., including a 1200 page grammar that took 26 years to complete, and a 6 volume Word Pictures in the N.T., which I quote here. Vincent is also a noted Greek scholar. What might your credentials be?

Those sound like good credentials.

Interesting...Jesus Christ and his disciples were probably asked similar questions by people at the PhD level, about credentials.

Tough choice to choose sometimes.