Comma Johanneum/Changing of the Bible.

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

I guess my underlying point is, what is it about men in the 16th and 17th centuries that because of their manuscript collation work, not long after the invention of printing, made further collation supposedly illegitimate? This is really my underlying question.

Nothing wrong with collation. However, they already knew the Greek lines, the Latin lines and the early church writers and the internal considerations. The whole enterprise was providentially guided.

After that collation work is simply geek-tech. Nothing really changed with the manuscripts, simply false paradigms of the Bible text clouded the minds of some.

Shalom,
Steven

 

[farouk]

Hi,

Nothing wrong with collation. However, they already knew the Greek lines, the Latin lines and the early church writers and the internal considerations. The whole enterprise was providentially guided.

After that collation work is simply geek-tech. Nothing really changed with the manuscripts, simply false paradigms of the Bible text clouded the minds of some.

Shalom,
Steven

Steven:

From some of your earlier comments, I had gathered - maybe mistakenly - that you thought the text of the New Testament after the 17th century could no longer be refined from the existing and other evidence.

Blessings.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

From some of your earlier comments, I had gathered - maybe mistakenly - that you thought the text of the New Testament after the 17th century could no longer be refined from the existing and other evidence.

People do what they want to do. If they want to collate 5000 Latin manuscripts or 1000 Greek manuscripts, that is their right. However, it will not improve the Bible text, it is simply geek-tech .. or Greek-text geek-tech if you want to make it a tongue-twister.

Steven

 

[farouk]

Hi,

People do what they want to do. If they want to collate 5000 Latin manuscripts or 1000 Greek manuscripts, that is their right. However, it will not improve the Bible text, it is simply geek-tech .. or Greek-text geek-tech if you want to make it a tongue-twister.

Steven

Steven:

So the sort of textual assessment that Erasmus, Stephens and Beza did was suddenly cut off and cannot be continued, you mean?

Blessings.

 

[By Grace]

Hi,

Why don't you simply search out Council of Carthage, with or without 484 AD, and with either "1 John v:7" or "1 John 5:7" (you can leave off the "1" in the search). or "Johannine Comma" or "Comma Johanneum". At least then you can find out what actually happened around the heavenly witnesses.
Hint: I never mentioned canons, what is involved is a Confession of Faith, the opposition was the Arian hosts, the Vandals under Huneric (also Hunneric), who were a tad hostile to the bishops.
The last I remember, you did not consider such ECW references relevant anyway, only manuscripts.
Yours in Jesus, Steven

Steven,

It does not work that way in a debate/discussion. I am not obliged to find the information that refutes my data. What I have given you is the URL to see the ENTIRE text of the Council of Carthage's edicts in my previous posts. You may know that the Council took place over many years to complete, and that those canons wer the results of what the Council achieved over the years, in and out of session. That is why the dates are irrelevant.

You did not mention the word "canon"; I did. That is because it is the proper word for the decisions made for the Council. But you mention above a " Confession of Faith, the opposition was the Arian hosts, the Vandals under Huneric (also Hunneric), ". Please demonstrate from the canons EXACTLY what Confession of Faith is mentioned. I did not see anything like the Nicene Creed, or the Apostles Creed (etc.) in the work done by Carthage.

Also I ask you to demonstrate what "Confession of Faith, the opposition was the Arian hosts, the Vandals under Huneric (also Hunneric) " have to do with the Comma Johanneum. If you can not establish that, then your bring it ip is an act of irrelevance. And it is in the same vein that I stated that works of the ECFs is irrelevant because they did not copy or translate the ancient manuscripts. It is NOT that I totally dismiss the ECFs because they are indeed useful. It is that they are useless when it comes to the transmission of the NT scripts. because they were all ruling presbyters, the ECFs did not sit around and copy manuscripts, so that is another reason why they can not be used in any sort of textural criticism.

So I end in a sort of a confusion. The OP and you began discussing the Comma. Then you made a sharp turn, and brought up the Ecumenical Council of Carthage. Then when pressed on that matter because what you stated earlier did not pan out, you begin posting about Vandals, and a non-existent "Confession of Faith". As a result, this thread has become derailed.

My opinion is that moderator intervention may be required to bring the discussion back on course.

 

[farouk]

Considerations of canonicity traditionally revolve around the authorship and authority of Bible books.

Whereas when appeals to canonicity are made in relation to textual variants, this can lead to confusion, in my view.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

As I indicated, Grace, I am not debating with you, since you do not even consider ECW evidences as consequent. In fact, there is no longer really a discussion. I am just trying to help you understand how to find the Carthage info.

It does not work that way in a debate/discussion. I am not obliged to find the information that refutes my data. What I have given you is the URL to see the ENTIRE text of the Council of Carthage's edicts in my previous posts.

Different Council. There were about five in all, the one I suggested you research is 484 AD. The use of the heavenly witnesses verse is mentioned by dozens of writers.

IYou did not mention the word "canon"; I did. That is because it is the proper word for the decisions made for the Council.

Which does not apply here.

But you mention above a " Confession of Faith, the opposition was the Arian hosts, the Vandals under Huneric (also Hunneric), ". Please demonstrate from the canons .

Wrong Council. Afaik, this one did not have canons, so there is nothing that can be demonstrated from "the canons".

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[Steven Avery]

Charles Forster - This false principle is, the rejection of a common Textus Receptus

Hi,

So the sort of textual assessment that Erasmus, Stephens and Beza did was suddenly cut off and cannot be continued, you mean?

Anybody can do any textual assessments they please. However it will not improve our Bible which is the pure Received Text. This concept that God had providentially given us his pure word was understood earlier, here is a nice quote to share the understanding :

A new plea for the authenticity of the text of the three heavenly witness; or, Porson's letters to Travis eclectically examined and the external and internal evidences for 1 John V, 7 eclectically re-surveyed (1867)
Charles Forster
http://books.google.com/books?id=yXIsAAAAYAAJ
from the Preface:

" ... there is a still graver error which affects not only the disputed verse, but the whole of Dr. Wordsworth's very learned, and very elaborate, edition of the Greek Testament; the admission, namely, of a false first principle of Scripture criticism. This false principle is, the rejection of a common Textus Receptus ; and the assumption, by each individual editor, of the right to set up his own text: in other words, to impose his own textus receptus upon the whole Christian world. For, disguise it to themselves and others as men may, the practice now arraigned comes simply to this. In St. Paul's words, ' every man hath an interpretation;' and each successive editor would, if he could, force his own critical text as the standard text to be ' known and read of all men.' " ... I desire here to enter my solemn protest against a false principle of editorship, which makes every man, at once, the manufacturer of his own Bible, and the dictator of that Bible as the standard for all others.... Now, as the rejection of the Textus Receptus is the sole cause of the evil, so the restoration of the Textus Receptus is its only remedy." (pp. ix-xiii.) ​

This was written just around the time that the great textual confusions and apostasy was beginning to manifest, leading today to the 100s of versions from the textus corruptus.

Today it is common for each and every pseudo-scholar to make up their own version to match their own pretensions. Others prefer to receive God's pure word:

Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.

Shalom,
Steven

 

[farouk]

Re: Charles Forster - This false principle is, the rejection of a common Textus Recep

Hi,

Anybody can do any textual assessments they please. However it will not improve our Bible which is the pure Received Text. This concept that God had providentially given us his pure word was understood earlier, here is a nice quote to share the understanding :

A new plea for the authenticity of the text of the three heavenly witness; or, Porson's letters to Travis eclectically examined and the external and internal evidences for 1 John V, 7 eclectically re-surveyed (1867)
Charles Forster
http://books.google.com/books?id=yXIsAAAAYAAJ
from the Preface:

" ... there is a still graver error which affects not only the disputed verse, but the whole of Dr. Wordsworth's very learned, and very elaborate, edition of the Greek Testament; the admission, namely, of a false first principle of Scripture criticism. This false principle is, the rejection of a common Textus Receptus ; and the assumption, by each individual editor, of the right to set up his own text: in other words, to impose his own textus receptus upon the whole Christian world. For, disguise it to themselves and others as men may, the practice now arraigned comes simply to this. In St. Paul's words, ' every man hath an interpretation;' and each successive editor would, if he could, force his own critical text as the standard text to be ' known and read of all men.' " ... I desire here to enter my solemn protest against a false principle of editorship, which makes every man, at once, the manufacturer of his own Bible, and the dictator of that Bible as the standard for all others.... Now, as the rejection of the Textus Receptus is the sole cause of the evil, so the restoration of the Textus Receptus is its only remedy." (pp. ix-xiii.) ​

This was written just around the time that the great textual confusions and apostasy was beginning to manifest, leading today to the 100s of versions from the textus corruptus.

Today it is common for each and every pseudo-scholar to make up their own version to match their own pretensions. Others prefer to receive God's pure word:

Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.

Shalom,
Steven

Steven:

Thank-you for you comments in response. What I was wondering about was, generally speaking rather than specifically to 1 John 5.7, but thank-you.

So I understand that you mean that the text cannot be further refined from any evidence, beyond textual readings already in the Textus Receptus. In other words, you hold that it is necessary to define the working of divine preservation solely through the Textus Receptus.

I think I clearly understand your position.

What I don't understand is how the supposed cut off occurred by which manuscript textual evidence supposedly no longer was authoritative over the printed text: how and when this occurred and how people were supposed to know.

Blessings.

 

[Steven Avery]

Re: Charles Forster - This false principle is, the rejection of a common Textus Recep

Hi,

Thank-you for you comments in response. What I was wondering about was, generally speaking rather than specifically to 1 John 5.7, but thank-you.

Welcome.
What Charles Forster wrote above was to John Wordsworth (and others) generally, not just specifically to 1 John 5:7.

Shalom,
Steven

 

[farouk]

Re: Charles Forster - This false principle is, the rejection of a common Textus Recep

Hi,

Welcome.
What Charles Forster wrote above was to John Wordsworth (and others) generally, not just specifically to 1 John 5:7.

Shalom,
Steven

Steven:

Well, okay.

Blessings.

 

[By Grace]

Moving the goalposts?

Hi,

As I indicated, Grace, I am not debating with you, since you do not even consider ECW evidences as consequent. In fact, there is no longer really a discussion. I am just trying to help you understand how to find the Carthage info.

It seems as if you are making NO attempt to understand what I actually posted:

And it is in the same vein that I stated that works of the ECFs is irrelevant because they did not copy or translate the ancient manuscripts. It is NOT that I totally dismiss the ECFs because they are indeed useful. It is that they are useless when it comes to the transmission of the NT scripts. because they were all ruling presbyters, the ECFs did not sit around and copy manuscripts, so that is another reason why they can not be used in any sort of textural criticism.

The decree of Carthage is NOT Scripture, and the subject of the OP is the inclusion of it in Scripture Therefore I believe it is irrelevant

I believe I said the same thing in a deleted post. But my point remains that BECAUSE THE ECFs DID NOT COPY THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS appealing to them is irrelevant IN THAT matter. Please do not put words in my posts that I believe. the ECFs are irrelevant

Different Council. There were about five in all, the one I suggested you research is 484 AD. The use of the heavenly witnesses verse is mentioned by dozens of writers.

Wrong Council. Afaik, this one did not have canons, so there is nothing that can be demonstrated from "the canons".

Hi,


To give one simple example, what did you learn about the Council of Carthage of 484 AD in the limited, deficient quotes you gave ? Any attempted exposition on the heavenly witnesses that does not discuss hundreds of bishops in the Arian controversies contra Hunneric and the Vandals in the fifth century, with the bishops affirming the verse directly in a statement of their faith as luce claris, clearer than the light ...

Steve, here is where you FIRST brought up Carthage. On the more recent quote, you are now saying that you did not mean Carthage, and that there was something different.

How can there be any rational discussion?

And in discussing the moving goal posts, you have YET to provide or mention any evidence that the comma was placed in the GREEK manuscripts until much later. Good discussion consists of presenting evidence. I presented that from several sources, but your reply is "go find evidence that proves my point".

Why are you asking me to find evidence that you refused to provide? At this point, I believe that there is no real evidence to support your position, otherwise you would state that "manuscript XYZ, is dated from 330 BC and it has the Comma".

If you presented that, it would be evidence that we could look at and discuss. WHEN it comes that you can present an actual GREEK manuscript excepting these:

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.
• 88: a variant reading in a sixteenth century hand, added to the fourteenth-century codex Regius of Naples.
• 221: a variant reading added to a tenth-century manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
• 429: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Wolfenbüttel.
• 629: a fourteenth or fifteenth century manuscript in the Vatican.
• 636: 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.

from http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html

You should notice from the EARLIEST date it appears is in the 1300s (fourteenth century) and that MOST of the variants are in the 1500s, or the sixteenth century.

Please reply with FACTS if you believe I am not correct in what I post.

 

[Steven Avery]

Re: Moving the goalposts?

Hi,

my point remains that BECAUSE THE ECFs DID NOT COPY THE GREEK MANUSCRIPTS appealing to them is irrelevant IN THAT matter. Please do not put words in my posts that I believe. the ECFs are irrelevant.

As I said, if you do not consider quotes from ECW to be relevant in some textual matter, we have nothing to discuss. Our conversations would be trains in the night. (One simple example would be Irenaeus and Cyprian and Pontius the Deacon referencing Acts 8:37,in the Ante-Nicene period).

Steve, here is where you FIRST brought up Carthage. On the more recent quote, you are now saying that you did not mean Carthage, and that there was something different.

By Grace, I have consistently mentioned Carthage, the Council of Carthage of 484 AD, and I gave you background information, such as the participation of the Vandals under Hunneric. Above, you have made long posts referencing the Canons of a different council. And I have explained to you very carefully that Canons were not involved, there was a Confession of Faith.

Shalom,
Steven

 

[farouk]

Re: Moving the goalposts?

Hi,

As I said, if you do not consider quotes from ECW to be relevant in some textual matter, we have nothing to discuss. Our conversations would be trains in the night. (I simple example would be Irenaeus and Cyprian and Pontius the Deacon referencing Acts 8:37,in the Ante-Nicene period).

I have consistently mentioned Carthage, the Council of Carthage of 484 AD. You have made long posts referencing the Canons of a differenct council, I have explained to you very carefully that Canons were not involved, there was a Confession of Faith.

Shalom,
Steven

Steven:

How do you see a Confession of Faith as having some formal relation as to a textual form?

Blessings.

 

[Steven Avery]

Confession of faith as textual evidence

Hi,

How do you see a Confession of Faith as having some formal relation as to a textual form?

When a Bible verse is quoted, it shows that the verse was in the Bibles of those who made (and likely those who received) the Confession of Faith. It is similar to the evidence when a single early church writer quotes a verse, only it is quite a bit stronger since it implies the text of the Bibles of the whole region, especially if the verse is given special note or emphasis.

In this case the bishops referencing the verse were under severe persecution, so they would be sure to quote properly, lest they give a cause of offense of fabricating scripture.

The textual apparatus will include such a reference, however they can mask the significance by giving it the name of the person considered the author. In this case, the use is virtually a super-evidence, demonstrating strong early transmission of the verse over a wide region.

=============

Added: in their reference to the verse, the actually said that this was luce claris, clearer than the light, to emphasize their confidence and the significance of the heavenly witnesses.

=============

For ByGrace, since the heavenly witnesses was in the Greek manuscripts that led to the translations and to the extensive Latin referencing from 200 AD on, it is clear that the verse largely dropped out of the Greek line. Most of our Greek manuscripts are late, and so we know very little from those mss about the first 500 years or so.

Circumstances that can cause text dropping include homoeoeteleuton, and a scribal preference for the text without the verse, as discussed in the Vulgate Prologue, properly ascribed to Jerome. And also as preferred by Augustine, according to the manuscript in the Fickermann paper. Looking at the later Greek manuscripts, where the verse had largely dropped out of the Greek line, tells you very little.

Steven

 

[By Grace]

Where is the beef?

Hi,

As I said, if you do not consider quotes from ECW to be relevant in some textual matter, we have nothing to discuss. Our conversations would be trains in the night. (One simple example would be Irenaeus and Cyprian and Pontius the Deacon referencing Acts 8:37,in the Ante-Nicene period).

You clarified what you did not make clear earlier. But you have not supplied direct evidences of what it is that you posit.

Please supply a reference to the the material that you want me to observe, and a direct quote of what it is that you want to me read. In other words. please refrain from telling about what you want me to search for, and direct me to that. I do confess that it seems to me as if you are playing "hide the ball" with me. That is a game I play with the grand kids.

So to quote the Wendy's commercial of many years back, I ask "Where's the beef?"

By Grace, I have consistently mentioned Carthage, the Council of Carthage of 484 AD, and I gave you background information, such as the participation of the Vandals under Hunneric. Above, you have made long posts referencing the Canons of a different council. And I have explained to you very carefully that Canons were not involved, there was a Confession of Faith.

What you have done here and on Yahoo is to quote a Greek Confession of Faith. That is a good proof document for understanding the historically orthodox position of the Trinity, BUT IT IS NOT THE NEW TESTAMENT IN GREEK.

You can see that HERELook at paragraph 6 on pages 49 and 50

So I ask you what is the relevance of a letter that is 250 years old that discusses the Comma as an addendum to a CONFESSION OF FAITH relevant to the text of the NT in Greek?

Please onnect the dots for me. I found the resources you mentioned but they do not provide any evidences for what you are proclaiming: the evidence of the comma in an EARLY Greek version of the NT.

Please find the data you proclaim that supports your position. I found a source, and it did not support what you claim. As a matter of fact NONE of things I researched substantiate your claim.

It is time for you to step up to the plate, and SHOW what you have with proof from an original Greek New Testament.

Please stop playing silly games, and show us the beef.

 

[farouk]

Steven:

Well, I think I see what you mean, thank-you; you are treating the verse's presence in an early Confession of Faith in the sense that the latter is simply an independent witness.

Some people demand that, in pursuit of a so called Ecclesiastical Text (which is what they view the Textus Receptus as), the precise form is part of a creedal subscription handed down by church authority. (I really struggle with this.)

Blessings.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Well, I think I see what you mean, thank-you; you are treating the verse's presence in an early Confession of Faith in the sense that the latter is simply an independent witness.

Most welcome.

ByGrace, for simplicity you can just go to the Wikipedia page and go to the section on the Council of Carthage, 484 AD, although you have some of that info in Travis.

And what claim do you think is contradicted ? My words, and your purported correction. The earliest solid evidence we have in either direction is Cyprian, 3rd century, who knew Latin and Greek, and his Latin Bible had the verse coming over from the Greek. However, we have no direct Greek evidences either way till the 4th century, just allusions like the Origen Psalm scholium.

Shalom,
Steven

 

[progman]

The canon as we know it is by and large attributed to Athanasius, Bishop of Alexendria. We have to bear in mind that the question of Jesus' divinity was a subject to great debate with two opposing views among the early Christians: Arians who put God above Jesus and the Alexandrians who claimed that Jesus was divine. Some historians look at the Trinity as a compromise initiated by Emperor Constantine. As a Christian, I read the Bible with an open mind. Call me Christian evolutionist if you like, where my undertanding of God and Christ hopefully develops and becomes clearer as time go by. Christianity for me is a journey towards light. I am therefore careful in accepting absolutes, or fundamentalist doctrines. The Bible is my guide, but I also read other early scriptures and Gospels. I find them enlightening.

In a sense, even people who read every line in the Bible literally believe in evolution of Christian thought, as the question of Jesus' role was not commonly agreed upon until AD325 and the canon was not collected until AD 367. That is three and half centuries after Jesus walked the earth...

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Apparently this section of the New Testament In 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.5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."was not in Older versions of the New Testament, nor in any of the Greek manuscripts and was one of the many proposed edits to the New Testament.



The parts of the text in bold are the Comma Johanneum, and are the basis of the 3 in 1 doctrine. Yet since it was not in the original texts is it right not to question the 3 in 1 doctrine and believe it wholeheartedly?



This was news to me when I first discovered this information. I just wanted to open a discussion on it and hear your thoughts.

Yeah, I hear ya, Q. I've been trying to point this out to others in other threads. Back in the first two centuries A.D., people used to just help themselves to adding to the various books of the Bible. Me, I just try to find out as much as I can and try to piece the Word of God together as best as I can. If I am incorrect in my findings, God can't blame me because He is the one who allowed them to alter His Word in the first place.


To address your point about the Trinity, I think that Matthew's might have been original:

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"-Matthew 28:19



But, yeah, the one you mentioned above and the ending of Mark were added by vandals, I say!