Comma Johanneum

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bon

Truth Seeker
Jul 26, 2004
1,644
88
✟17,259.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Hi to all the members who might remember me, and to all those who dont...:)

I have a simple query.

Can anyone here help me with some solid information regarding this controversial scripture, (1 John 5:7-8)?

Some say it was an addition to scripture from around the 10th century onwards.

I have read some conflicting information stating that the passage was present in manuscripts as early as the 4th century.

Any information would be greatly appreciated.

Bon
 

The Time Traveller

Junior Member
May 25, 2008
91
4
Visit site
✟7,731.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Hi Bon,

I once wrote a computer program (in VB.NET) to try to analyse a passage of scripture based on the work done by the Russian mathematician Dr Ivan Panin. It tried to determine if a passage was interpolated or not. But I discovered that there was too many different Greek texts and I abandoned the project. This may turn out to be your problem to.

P.S. Do a Google on Panin, you will be surprised at how detailed he was.
 
Upvote 0

simchat_torah

Got Torah?
Feb 23, 2003
7,345
433
45
San Francisco, CA
Visit site
✟9,917.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
By the way Bon, the passage you refer to is only contained in about 8 manuscripts (out of literally thousands) and always in the margins as if either a later thought, later addition, considered spurious (most likely scenario), or was only commentary. The passage is quoted by none of the early church fathers, this is especially odd as many would have used it in trinitarian debates. To my knowledge it appears no earlier within the texts of manuscripts until 1215... in a Latin translation. It does not appear in any of the more ancient texts (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), nor does it appear in the Old Latin texts or the Vulgate.

What you're referring to is a quote from Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus, which added a marginal note that "Spirit, water and blood" was an interpretation of the trinity by Bishop Instantius. It was later misinterpreted by some as the actual text itself, and not a marginal note... and was added to the NT text circa 13th century.

Again, welcome to the world of NT textual criticism.
 
Upvote 0

The Time Traveller

Junior Member
May 25, 2008
91
4
Visit site
✟7,731.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Because each Greek letter has a numeric value, the program was designed to count the value of each word and try to ascertain the correct grammatical construction of the sentence. It proved to be beyond my capabilities. Too many years have passed by since I left college. The old grey cells are going white Ha, Ha.
 
Upvote 0

GeratTzedek

Meaning Righteous Proselyte to Judaism
Aug 5, 2007
4,213
339
62
Los Angeles area
Visit site
✟6,003.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Bon: It has come to be accepted that this passage did not exist in the original text. The church fathers never quote it in any of their many trinitarian debates. Earlier manuscripts exist in which it is missing. You will find that the all the good translations, whether Protestant (such as the New International Version) or Catholic (such as the New American Bible) leave the phrase out. Below is a copy of the Codex Sinaiticus; the portion highlight leaves out the phrase, and simply reads, "There are three witness bearers: the Spirit and the water and the blood."

 
Upvote 0

ContraMundum

Messianic Jewish Christian
Supporter
Jul 2, 2005
15,666
2,957
Visit site
✟78,078.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Hi Bon,

Of course, there is plenty of evidence that the earliest Christians knew something of this text.

Simply put, the ekklesia's most ancient lectionaries (eg. the list of readings done in the congregation's worship) have it, the Greek is problematic without it (a very important, and for me, decisive point) and the "early" manuscript argument does not work as easily as might it seem to the detractors of the NT.

For a start, every sacred text in earth has variants- including the Masoretic text (overly revered for some unknown reason on this forum) which has variations from older scrolls. The reason texts have variations is simple: the way theology works is faith is acted and lived often before it is written. Oral tradition always preceeds the vast majority of scripture, and it is the tradition that is eventually written down and canonised. In other words, God's people came before the written Bible, not vice versa. This of course includes the Tanakh and even the Torah, if one is honest. Any body of any religion eventually has to make a decision of canon on the text of their sacred writings. The Jewish faith had to choose on more than one occasion which bits were "in" and which bits were "out". The Christian faith is the same. The ekklesia had its teaching passed down from the Apostles and their successors and had to choose between the wheat from God and the chaff from men. The evidence is clear- the theology contained in the Johannine comma was in existance within the whole body of Christ from the start so the theological implications of the verse cannot logically be the issue. As is often said, there are other verses to defend the ekklesia's belief in the Trinity. Without 1 John 5:7 the Trinity still is the faith of the ekklesia.

Some articles that might help to sift and test:

A defence of the Johannine comma

The Johannine comma archives (Has lists etc.)

Mind you- there are two sides to this discussion, but I am on the positive side. Plenty of other sources are critical of it's inclusion in the text, but very few are critical of it's theology, as the theology is proven thoroughly elsewhere (in the orthodox perspective, anyway).

With respect to those posters above who are not Christians, as critics of the Faith who hail from other religions, I don't think they have the right to speak on behalf of the Faith of the ekklesia or about the truth of our scriptures. They are in a position to only present one (the negative) side of the debate, and thus can't ever possibly represent the beliefs of the ekklesia, especially in the light of the open rejection of them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tea

Regular Member
Sep 16, 2005
439
39
61
✟15,772.00
Faith
Marital Status
Private
Hi Bon, how are things your end of the world. How is Bon jnr?

In response to your original question, I too believe that these verses were indeed added to scripture and were not in the original texts. It is an idea that is not easily supported in the rest of scripture, and certainly seems to contradict Torah's teachings on G-d.

Shalom
Tracey
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

kiwimac

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian
Supporter
May 14, 2002
14,985
1,519
63
New Zealand
Visit site
✟590,115.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Utrecht
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
For a useful discussion on the Comma, I recommend taking a look here. The fact is that while the passage is (arguably) alluded to earlier than the 1500s, it exists only in 8 MSS and in the margins of 4 of those. There simply is no real evidence of its existence in any Greek text until the 1500s.
 
Upvote 0

ContraMundum

Messianic Jewish Christian
Supporter
Jul 2, 2005
15,666
2,957
Visit site
✟78,078.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
For a useful discussion on the Comma, I recommend taking a look here. The fact is that while the passage is (arguably) alluded to earlier than the 1500s, it exists only in 8 MSS and in the margins of 4 of those. There simply is no real evidence of its existence in any Greek text until the 1500s.

The problem with that kiwi is that the passage is cited in sermons and lectionaries as early as the third century. Higher critics tend to overlook that, among other things. One fact that stuns me is how bad the Greek looks without it. As a colleague of sorts, how do you find that point?

Still, thanks for the link. It is a constructive contribution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ivy
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PETE_

Count as lost, every moment not spent loving God
Jun 11, 2006
170,116
7,562
59
✟212,561.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
You guys are much more familiar with this than I but I have been following along a bit and found this in my digital library. You can probably get more from it than I but here it is


Porson having spoken Pontifically upon the matter of the text of “the Three Witnesses,” cadit quµstio, locutus est Augur Apollo. It is of more importance that Bishop Kaye in his calm wisdom, remarks as follows;444 “In my opinion, the passage in Tertullian, far from containing an allusion to 1 John 5:7, furnishes most decisive proof that he knew nothing of the verse.” After this, and the acquiescence of scholars generally, it would be presumption to say a word on the question of quoting it as Scripture. In Textual Criticism it seems to be an established canon that it has no place in the Greek Testament. I submit, however, that, something remains to be said for it, on the ground of the old African Version used and quoted by Tertullian and Cyprian; and I dare to say, that, while there would be no ground whatever for inserting it in our English Version, the question of striking it out is a widely different one. It would be sacrilege, in my humble opinion, for reasons which will appear, in the following remarks, upon our author.
It appears to me very clear that Tertullian is quoting 1 John 5:7. in the passage now under consideration: “Qui tres unum sunt, non unus, quomodo dictum est, Ego et Pater unum sumus, etc.” Let me refer to a work containing a sufficient answer to Porson, on this point of Tertullian’s quotation, which it is easier to pass sub-silentio, than to refute. I mean Forster’s New Plea, of which the full title is placed in the margin.445 The whole work is worth thoughtful study, but, I name it with reference to this important passage of our author, exclusively. In connection with other considerations on which I have no right to enlarge in this place, it satisfies me as to the primitive origin of the text in the Vulgate, and hence of its right to stand in our English Vulgate until it can be shewn that the Septuagint Version, quoted and honoured by our Lord, is free from similar readings, and divergences from the Hebrew mss.​
444 p. 516.

445 “A New Plea for the Authenticity of the text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses: or, Porson’s Letters to Travis eclectically examined, etc. etc. By the Rev. Charles Forster, etc.” Cambridge, Deighton, Bell & Co., and London, Bell & Daldy, 1867.

Roberts, Alexander ; Donaldson, James ; Coxe, A. Cleveland: The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. III : Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325. Oak Harbor : Logos Research Systems, 1997, S. 631
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.