Conflicted About 1 John 5:7

[Radagast]

Well, I didn't know about Jerome's use of it

Did Jerome use it? Where?

AFAIK, Jerome never uses it at all.

 

[Radagast]

I believe you are to be mistaken. It is not in the oldest Greek manuscripts, in which the oldest Greek manuscripts were corrupted by the widespread Arianism at the time.

Defense of the Johannine Comma

It's not in any Greek manuscript before the 1400s.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

It's not in any Greek manuscript before the 1400s.

What about its presence in the Old Latin manuscripts as early as 100 something AD?

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

Did Jerome use it? Where?

AFAIK, Jerome never uses it at all.

In fact, this is the quote I found.

"Just as these are properly understood and so translated faithfully by interpreters into Latin without leaving ambiguity for the readers nor [allowing] the variety of genres to conflict, especially in that text where we read the unity of the trinity is placed in the first letter of John, where much error has occurred at the hands of unfaithful translators contrary to the truth of faith, who have kept just the three words water, blood and spirit in this edition omitting mention of Father, Word and Spirit in which especially the catholic faith is strengthened and the unity of substance of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is attested."

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

Did Jerome use it? Where?

AFAIK, Jerome never uses it at all.

I would suggest you read that elephant-sized article. There's also a quote from Cyprian about the same issue, dating from 250 AD, and his quote is direct.

 

[Radagast]

I believe you are to be mistaken. It is not in the oldest Greek manuscripts, in which the oldest Greek manuscripts were corrupted by the widespread Arianism at the time.

No, I believe that you are mistaken. And stop pointing me at unreliable websites. The oldest manuscript with the Johannine Comma is the Codex Ottobonianus, from about 1400.

 

[Radagast]

In fact, this is the quote I found.

"Just as these are properly understood and so translated faithfully by interpreters into Latin without leaving ambiguity for the readers nor [allowing] the variety of genres to conflict, especially in that text where we read the unity of the trinity is placed in the first letter of John, where much error has occurred at the hands of unfaithful translators contrary to the truth of faith, who have kept just the three words water, blood and spirit in this edition omitting mention of Father, Word and Spirit in which especially the catholic faith is strengthened and the unity of substance of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is attested."

This is in fact not a quote from Jerome. It's from a document that used to be misattributed to him.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

No, I believe that you are mistaken. And stop pointing me at unreliable websites. The oldest manuscript with the Johannine Comma is the Codex Ottobonianus, from about 1400.

Pointing fingers does not benefit the conversation. I am mistaken if I seemed to accuse you of ignorance. In what way is that website unreliable? He's drawing historical resources, hence the 35 references he's pulled up on the index.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

This is in fact not a quote from Jerome.

I'll copy and paste that somewhere else.

 

[Radagast]

What about its presence in the Old Latin manuscripts as early as 100 something AD?

There are no Latin manuscripts that old. The oldest Latin manuscripts with the Comma are from the 7th Century: León palimpsest - Wikipedia

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

This is in fact not a quote from Jerome.

Fact? It belongs to "Jerome’s Prologue to the Canonical Epistles." While it is not proven that Jerome as indeed the author, nothing says it wasn't Jerome either. The earliest manuscript with this text was from Codex Fuldensis which was about AD 540 something, which predates AD 1400 by over 800 years.

 

[Radagast]

Fact? It belongs to "Jerome’s Prologue to the Canonical Epistles." While it is not proven that Jerome as indeed the author, nothing says it wasn't Jerome either. The earliest manuscript with this text was from Codex Fuldensis which was about AD 540 something, which predates AD 1400 by over 800 years.

Jerome didn't write that Prologue. That's generally agreed today.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

Jerome didn't write that Prologue. That's generally agreed today.

Even if Jerome didn't write the prologue, the time that it was written is significant, I'd say.

Do you think that I am lost if I believe that the verse is somehow inspired? Would the plagues of the Bible be added upon me? For whoever adds to these words, the plagues shall be added upon him.

 

[Radagast]

I suspect you have a newer (per)Version... three top Bible publishers removed all references to God The Son, Jesus so as to not offend moslems! This occurred just a few short years ago and was noticed world wide.

This is nonsense, of course.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

This is nonsense, of course.

I would agree upon that being nonsense.

Until the end of the 19th century, nobody really challenged the Comma Johanneum, and then with the rise of textual criticism, that's when things began to happen.

 

[drjean]

I put the supportive link in.

I suspect you have a newer (per)Version... three top Bible publishers removed all references to God The Son, Jesus so as to not offend moslems! This occurred just a few short years ago and was noticed world wide. “Son of God” Translation Controversy
If you have one of those, there are more than just that one verse they removed/altered. (I'd burn it, myself.)


AND

http://www.equip.org/article/the-son-of-god-and-muslim-idiom-translations/

AND

Wycliffe Associates Leaves Bible Translation Alliance over ‘Son of God’ for Muslims

AND

Groups Issue 'Son of God' Translation

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

I put the supportive link in.

I suspect you have a newer (per)Version... three top Bible publishers removed all references to God The Son, Jesus so as to not offend moslems! This occurred just a few short years ago and was noticed world wide. “Son of God” Translation Controversy
If you have one of those, there are more than just that one verse they removed/altered. (I'd burn it, myself.)

Oh that Bible. Never heard of it, never had one, thankfully.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

Did Jerome use it? Where?

AFAIK, Jerome never uses it at all.

(Has nothing to do with your comment, just making a statement to you.)

I changed my stance on such verse to 'Other' because I am not sure anymore. The Bible still supports Trinitarianism obviously and I believe denying the Holy Spirit His personhood is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. I still hold to inerrancy of the Scriptures, though. I always want the most accurate text.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

(Has nothing to do with your comment, just making a statement to you.)

I changed my stance on such verse to 'Other' because I am not sure anymore. The Bible still supports Trinitarianism obviously and I believe denying the Holy Spirit His personhood is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. I still hold to inerrancy of the Scriptures, though. I always want the most accurate text.

Comma Johanneum

References something about Clement from Alexandria having a quote of the scripture without the Comma Johanneum and that was around 200 AD

 

[Radagast]

I put the supportive link in.

I suspect you have a newer (per)Version

I don't care for your language.

... three top Bible publishers removed all references to God The Son, Jesus

Yet, strangely, every modern Bible I check still has such references.