SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : trying to buy the Textus Receptus!

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re: Dr. Thomas Holland

This relates:

The following is an excerpt from Dr. Thomas Holland's Crowned With Glory, ©2000, used with permission.

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

The passage is called the Johannine Comma and is not found in the majority of Greek manuscripts. [1] However, the verse is a wonderful testimony to the Heavenly Trinity and should be maintained in our English versions, not only because of its doctrinal significance but because of the external and internal evidence that testify to its authenticity.

The External Support: Although not found in most Greek manuscripts, the Johannine Comma is found in several. It is contained in 629 (fourteenth century), 61 (sixteenth century), 918 (sixteenth century), 2473 (seventeenth century), and 2318 (eighteenth century). It is also in the margins of 221 (tenth century), 635 (eleventh century), 88 (twelveth century), 429 (fourteenth century), and 636 (fifteenth century). There are about five hundred existing manuscripts of 1 John chapter five that do not contain the Comma.

[2] It is clear that the reading found in the Textus Receptus is the minority reading with later textual support from the Greek witnesses. Nevertheless, being a minority reading does not eliminate it as genuine. The Critical Text considers the reading Iesou (of Jesus) to be the genuine reading instead of Iesou Christou (of Jesus Christ) in 1 John 1:7. Yet Iesou is the minority reading with only twenty-four manuscripts supporting it, while four hundred seventy-seven manuscripts support the reading Iesou Christou found in the Textus Receptus.

Likewise, in 1 John 2:20 the minority reading pantes (all) has only twelve manuscripts supporting it, while the majority reading is panta (all things) has four hundred ninety-one manuscripts. Still, the Critical Text favors the minority reading over the majority in that passage. This is common place throughout the First Epistle of John, and the New Testament as a whole. Therefore, simply because a reading is in the minority does not eliminate it as being considered original.

While the Greek textual evidence is weak, the Latin textual evidence for the Comma is extremely strong. It is in the vast majority of the Old Latin manuscripts, which outnumber the Greek manuscripts. Although some doubt if the Comma was a part of Jerome's original Vulgate, the evidence suggests that it was. Jerome states:
In that place particularly where we read about the unity of the Trinity which is placed in the First Epistle of John, in which also the names of three, i.e. of water, of blood, and of spirit, do they place in their edition and omitting the testimony of the Father; and the Word, and the Spirit in which the catholic faith is especially confirmed and the single substance of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is confirmed.

[3]
Other church fathers are also known to have quoted the Comma. Although some have questioned if Cyprian (258 AD) knew of the Comma, his citation certainly suggests that he did. He writes: "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'."

[4] Also, there is no doubt that Priscillian (385 AD) cites the Comma:

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."

[5]
Likewise, the anti-Arian work compiled by an unknown writer, the Varimadum (380 AD) states: "And John the Evangelist says, . . . 'And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one'."

[6] Additionally, Cassian (435 AD), Cassiodorus (580 AD), and a host of other African and Western bishops in subsequent centuries have cited the Comma. [7] Therefore, we see that the reading has massive and ancient textual support apart from the Greek witnesses.

Internal Evidence: The structure of the Comma is certainly Johannine in style. John is noted for referring to Christ as "the Word." If 1 John 5:7 were an interpretation of verse eight, as some have suggested, than we would expect the verse to use "Son" instead of "Word." However, the verse uses the Greek word logos, which is uniquely in the style of John and provides evidence of its genuineness. Also, we find John drawing parallels between the Trinity and what they testify (1 John 4:13-14). Therefore, it comes as no surprise to find a parallel of witnesses containing groups of three, one heavenly and one earthly.

The strongest evidence, however, is found in the Greek text itself. Looking at 1 John 5:8, there are three nouns which, in Greek, stand in the neuter (Spirit, water, and blood). [u][b][size=x-small][color=0000FF]However, they are followed by a participle that is masculine.[/color][/size][/b][/u]

[b][color=CC0000]The Greek phrase here is oi marturountes (who bare witness). Those who know the Greek language understand this to be poor grammar if left to stand on its own Even more noticeably, verse six has the same participle but stands in the neuter (Gk.: to marturoun). Why are three neuter nouns supported with a masculine participle? The answer is found if we include verse seven. There we have two masculine nouns (Father and Son) followed by a neuter noun (Spirit). The verse also has the Greek masculine participle oi marturountes. With this clause introducing verse eight, it is very proper for the participle in verse eight to be masculine, because of the masculine nouns in verse seven. But if verse seven were not there it would become improper Greek grammar.[/color][/b]

Even though Gregory of Nazianzus (390 AD) does not testify to the authenticity of the Comma, he makes mention of the flawed grammar resulting from its absence. In his Theological Orientations he writes referring to John:
. . . (he has not been consistent) in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourselves disclaim in the case of Deity?

[8]
It is clear that Gregory recognized the inconsistency with Greek grammar if all we have are verses six and eight without verse seven. Other scholars have recognized the same thing. This was the argument of Robert Dabney of Union Theological Seminary in his book, The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek (1891). Bishop Middleton in his book, Doctrine of the Greek Article, argues that verse seven must be a part of the text according to the Greek structure of the passage. Even in the famous commentary by Matthew Henry, there is a note stating that we must have verse seven if we are to have proper Greek in verse eight.

[9]
While the external evidence makes the originality of the Comma possible, the internal evidence makes it very probable. When we consider the providential hand of God and His use of the Traditional Text in the Reformation it is clear that the Comma is authentic.



[1] The first and second editions of Erasmus' Greek text did not contain the Comma. It is generally reported that Erasmus promised to include the Comma in his third edition if a single manuscript containing the Comma could be produced. A Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy) forged a Greek text containing it by translating the Comma from the Latin into Greek. Erasmus was then presented with this falsified manuscript and, being faithful to his word, reluctantly included the Comma in the 1522 edition. However, as has now been admitted by Dr. Bruce Metzger, this story is apocryphal (The Text Of The New Testament, 291). Metzger notes that H. J. de Jonge, a respected specialist on Erasmus, has established that there is no evidence of such events occurring. Therefore, opponents of the Comma in light of the historical facts should no longer affirm this report.

[2] Kurt Aland, in connection with Annette Benduhn-Mertz and Gerd Mink, Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments: I. Die Katholischen Briefe Band 1: Das Material (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 1987), 163-166.

[3] Prologue To The Canonical Epistles. The Latin text reads, "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."

[4] Treatises 1 5:423.

[5] Liber Apologeticus.

[6] Varimadum 90:20-21.

[7] Some other sources include the Speculum (or m of 450 AD), Victor of Vita (489 AD), Victor Vitensis (485 AD), Codex Freisingensis (of 500 AD), Fulgentius (533 AD), Isidore of Seville (636 AD), Codex Pal Legionensis (650 AD), and Jaqub of Edessa (700 AD). Interestingly, it is also found in the edition of the Apostle's Creed used by the Waldenses and Albigensians of the twelfth century.

[8] Fifth Orientation the Holy Spirit.

[9] Actually the 1 John commentary is the work of "Mr. John Reynolds of Shrewsbury," one of the ministers who completed Matthew Henry's commentary, which was left incomplete [only up to the end of Acts] at Henry's death in 1714.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

God bless,

Stever

 2006/6/17 1:43
Combat_Chuck
Member



Joined: 2006/1/27
Posts: 202


 Re:

Stever:

Which do you believe is "the perfect Bible":

The Earliest+Majority Byzantine Textform
OR
Erasmus 3rd edition Greek New Testament

And why?


_________________
Combat Chuck

 2006/6/17 2:10Profile









 Re:

Quote:

Combat_Chuck wrote:
Stever:

Which do you believe is "the perfect Bible":

The Earliest+Majority Byzantine Textform
OR
Erasmus 3rd edition Greek New Testament

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[b][size=x-small]Stever :

Erasmus 3rd edition Greek New Testament[/size][/b]

xxxxxxxxxxxx

And why?



xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[b][size=x-small]Stever responds again:


Several reasons lead me to that conclusion[/b]


1. The quote that I have provided, by three separate sources about the gender, etc. of the Johannie Comma HAS NEVER BEEN REFUTED by another Greek Scholar. We have heard several posters on this thread, with one or two years of Greek under their belt throw stones at it, but I have never seen any of the great champions from the left--those that support the NIV and the Newer versions specifically attack this and blow it out of the water. None of them go there. Why not, if it is bogus as KingJimmy and others have posted here?

[b]Specifically, I have never heard one of the "big guns" from the left address this specific issue:

INTERNAL EVIDENCE::[/b]

The structure of the Comma is certainly Johannine in style. John is noted for referring to Christ as "the Word." If 1 John 5:7 were an interpretation of verse eight, as some have suggested, than we would expect the verse to use "Son" instead of "Word." However, the verse uses the Greek word logos, which is uniquely in the style of John and provides evidence of its genuineness. Also, we find John drawing parallels between the Trinity and what they testify (1 John 4:13-14). Therefore, it comes as no surprise to find a parallel of witnesses containing groups of three, one heavenly and one earthly.

[color=CC0000]The strongest evidence, however, is found in the Greek text itself. Looking at 1 John 5:8, there are three nouns which, in Greek, stand in the neuter (Spirit, water, and blood). However, they are followed by a participle that is masculine. The Greek phrase here is oi marturountes (who bare witness). Those who know the Greek language understand this to be poor grammar if left to stand on its own. Even more noticeably, verse six has the same participle but stands in the neuter (Gk.: to marturoun). Why are three neuter nouns supported with a masculine participle? The answer is found if we include verse seven. There we have two masculine nouns (Father and Son) followed by a neuter noun (Spirit). The verse also has the Greek masculine participle oi marturountes. With this clause introducing verse eight, it is very proper for the participle in verse eight to be masculine, because of the masculine nouns in verse seven. But if verse seven were not there it would become improper Greek grammar. [/color][/size]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Metzger (a liberal) has tried to discredit the Johannie Comma as follows:

Metzger writes:
"The first and second editions of Erasmus' Greek text did not contain the Comma. It is generally reported that Erasmus promised to include the Comma in his third edition if a single manuscript containing the Comma could be produced. A Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy) forged a Greek text containing it by translating the Comma from the Latin into Greek. Erasmus was then presented with this falsified manuscript and, being faithful to his word, reluctantly included the Comma in the 1522 edition."

However, as has now been admitted by Dr. Bruce Metzger, this story is a lie (apocryphal) (The Text Of The New Testament, 291), and he had to remove it from all future publications of his book. Metzger also had to note that H. J. de Jonge, a respected specialist on Erasmus, has ESTABLISHED THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF SUCH EVENTS OCCURRING. Therefore, opponents of the Comma in light of the historical facts should no longer affirm this report--it was NEVER THE TRUTH.

HOWEVER, METZGER never addressed the issue with the neuter, and the masculine, etc. shown above in [b][size=small][color=CC0000]red.[/color][/size][/b] No one from the LEFT has done that, that I am aware of.

Until they (the left and others) address this issue, and stake their credibility on it, and attack it head on, then it continues to be another nail in the coffin of the work of Westcott and Hort, and all of the "newer" versions (NIV, NASB, etc. etc. etc.) that work 24/7 to do anything they can to discredit the King James Version (the Protestant Bible)


God bless,

Stever :-D

 2006/6/17 3:31
Combat_Chuck
Member



Joined: 2006/1/27
Posts: 202


 Re:

But Stever,

Metzger aside-- KingJimmy, FOC, and Philologos have plenty of other good points... As much as I want the comma to be Scripture......

Why is it not in the earliest and majority of the byzantine text form! why!>!?!?! [b]WHY?!?!!?[/b] The very "preserved" form that we so adamantly defend! Why not?! How can this be???

[b]Is not the byzantine textform the very text we claim has been sovereignly preserved throughout the centuries? If yes, then why would God not preserve the comma within?[/b]

This just doesn't make any sense.

Why did the people debating with the arians never use the comma as a defense for the holy Trinity??

Not only this, but why was it not in erasmus's 1st and 2nd editions? And luthers Bible?

It just doesn't add up, Stever, it really doesn't.

I no longer can believe 1John 5:7 is inspired unless we find it in an ancient manuscript.

Could this be traditionalism seeping in? As great as the KJV is, this "comma" is not in the highly esteemed byzantine greek textform. It is from the minority text, remember... "the corrupted text" :-o


_________________
Combat Chuck

 2006/6/17 4:16Profile









 Re:

Quote:

Combat_Chuck wrote:
But Stever,


Could this be traditionalism seeping in? As great as the KJV is, this "comma" is not in the highly esteemed byzantine greek textform. It is from the minority text, remember... "the corrupted text" :-o




xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Stever responds:

Not all of the early "minority texts" in Latin were corrupt. They all became truly corrpupt after Origen.

Erasmus was quite certain that it was there, and the writings that I posted earlier (the Patristic writings of the early Church Fathers) proves that it was in the letters they wrote to each other.


What other awful thing can you find in the King James? Don't you think that the left would find all kinds of road blocks to throw at it? I think it was KingJimmy who criticized the work of Edward F. Hills (The King James Version Defended) in this thread. He said that his work was of no value because no one took it seriously. The only ones who didn't take it seriously and threw stones at it was the LEFT- THE LIBERALS, that still to this day support the NIV and the newer versions, men like Metzger an others.

If you feel comfortable in reading the byzantine Greek Texts, then please go ahead. There is no basic difference between them and the King James. The same cannot be said about the difference between the Byzantine Greek Texts, and the NIV, NASB, and the "newer versions". There you find nothing but error in all of the newer versions.

God bless,

Stever :-D

 2006/6/17 4:55
Combat_Chuck
Member



Joined: 2006/1/27
Posts: 202


 Re:

Stever, you didn't answer my main question though,

Quote:
[b]Is not the byzantine textform the very text we claim has been sovereignly preserved throughout the centuries? If yes, then why would God not preserve the comma within?[/b]


_________________
Combat Chuck

 2006/6/17 5:02Profile









 Re:

How many times have I answered this? It is a complex issue, with many facets of information, posted over 12 pages on this site. It is not black and white.

1. The writings of the early Church fathers, in the year 250, back-up the johannie comma, as well as the writings of other early church fathers.

"Evidence for the early existence of the Johannine comma is found in the Latin versions and in the writings of the Latin Church Fathers. For example, it seems to have been quoted at Carthage by Cyprian (c. 250) who writes as follows: "And again concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: and the Three are One." (29) It is true that Facundus, a 6th-century African bishop, interpreted Cyprian as referring to the following verse, (30) but, as Scrivener (1833) remarks, it is "surely safer and more candid" to admit that Cyprian read the Johannine comma in his New Testament manuscript "than to resort to the explanation of Facundus." (31)
The first undisputed citations of the Johannine comma occur in the writing of two 4th-century Spanish bishops, Priscillian, (32) who in 385 was beheaded by the Emperor Maximus on the charge of sorcery and heresy, and Idacius Clarus, (33) Priscillian's principal adversary and accuser. In the 5th century the Johannine comma was quoted by several orthodox African writers to defend the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals, who ruled North Africa from 489 to 534 and were fanatically attached to the Arian heresy. (34) And about the same time it was cited by Cassiodorus (480-570), in Italy. (35) The comma is also found in r an Old Latin manuscript of the 5th or 6th century, and in the Speculum, a treatise which contains an Old Latin text. It was not included in Jerome's original edition of the Latin Vulgate but around the year 800 it was taken into the text of the Vulgate from the Old Latin manuscripts. It was found in the great mass of the later Vulgate manuscripts and in the Clementine edition of the Vulgate, the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church."

[b][size=x-small][color=0000FF]The Roman Catholic Church did not start out corrupt, it became corrupt.Erasmus was aware of that, and we should be as well (aware of it). God's Word has been preserved- it can be found in the King James Bible. God preserved His Word through the texts, as well as the writings of the early Church Fathers (Patristics). We have one book, with His inspired Word in it. You won't find it anywhere else. Other's (Luther, Stephens, etc) were not as focused on the Patristics, although Stephens put the comma in, and Luther did not. [/color][/size][/b]

God bless,

Stever :-D

Quote:

Combat_Chuck wrote:
Stever, you didn't answer my question though,

Quote:
[b]Is not the byzantine textform the very text we claim has been sovereignly preserved throughout the centuries? If yes, then why would God not preserve the comma within?[/b]


 2006/6/17 5:12
Combat_Chuck
Member



Joined: 2006/1/27
Posts: 202


 Re:

But I thought it was your belief that God sovereignly preserved His Word in the Majority Byzantine Textform?

Why is the comma not in the byzantine textform?


_________________
Combat Chuck

 2006/6/17 5:37Profile
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

Quote:

The Greek phrase here is oi marturountes (who bare witness). Those who know the Greek language understand this to be poor grammar if left to stand on its own Even more noticeably, verse six has the same participle but stands in the neuter (Gk.: to marturoun). Why are three neuter nouns supported with a masculine participle? The answer is found if we include verse seven. There we have two masculine nouns (Father and Son) followed by a neuter noun (Spirit). The verse also has the Greek masculine participle oi marturountes. With this clause introducing verse eight, it is very proper for the participle in verse eight to be masculine, because of the masculine nouns in verse seven. But if verse seven were not there it would become improper Greek grammar.



Stever,

How many more times do you have to quote such nonsense? Your quoting these individuals to me only proves they do not understand what they are talking about regarding Greek (not to mention yourself). The participle in this verse cannot in anyway modify anything that comes after it, for it modifies that which precedes it. Participles must agree with all the words they modify in case, number, and gender. Even with the comma insert, the only word that the participle in question could possibly modify in either variant is the word preceding it, "three." For "three" is the subject of the participle "bearing witness," and cannot in anyway be any of the words: water, blood, Spirit, Father, word, etc. Why? Because none of these words agree with the participle in case, number and gender.

I don't know why we keep going through this stuff over and over. Just because you quote the same arguments over and over doesn't make it any more right, and you are only making your case worse by quoting such things, as it plainly appears to me the so-called doctors you keep quoting either have no clue what they are talking about, or are liars attempting to corrupt the word of God.

The more you quote them, the more I am inclined to believe they are deliberately lying. But I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume they just don't know what they are talking about. This is very basic Greek grammar we are talking about.

It's obvious you already have your mind made up on these subject matters. As your oonclusion is that if it appears in the text the KJV used to translate from, then it must be geniune, as you believe the TR is the perfectly preserved word of God. Therefore, your conclusions are made up already before you even examine the internal and external evidence, no matter how overwhelming the evidence might be.

Quote:

Until they (the left and others) address this issue, and stake their credibility on it, and attack it head on, then it continues to be another nail in the coffin of the work of Westcott and Hort, and all of the "newer" versions (NIV, NASB, etc. etc. etc.) that work 24/7 to do anything they can to discredit the King James Version (the Protestant Bible)



The problem steve is that it's not just about Westcot and Hort, Metzger and the like. You can make it about them all you want, and spin all sorts of conspiracy theories and slanderous accusations. But in reality, textual criticism has nothing to do about them.

The great thing about the criticial editions of the Greek NT (NA27 & UBS4) is the each scholar can make decisions for themselves based on the internal and external evidences if they agree or not with any variant that they come across. In some textual critical issues I have personally undertaken, I sometimes am in full agreement with the NA27/UBS4 editions. At times though, I disagree with their choices.

It's not simply a matter of saying "Alexandrian vs Byzantine" or "TR vs. NA27." It's about looking at each piece of evidence, and painfully and carefully weighing each bit of evidence. Sometimes simply sorting through any one variant can take a couple hours. Not to mention consulting commentaries and other books that address various textual issues.

I know for a textual issue I had to address in my Interp. of NT class, it took me several hours of being in a library to come to just examine the evidence of a entirely insignificant variant in Mark 11:19. And then only after I chewed on it for a couple days, and actually sat down to write my conclusion did I actually have the issue settled in my mind, in which I decided I prefered one of the variants over what the UBS4 had as its text.


_________________
Jimmy H

 2006/6/17 8:53Profile
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

Quote:

I think it was KingJimmy who criticized the work of Edward F. Hills (The King James Version Defended) in this thread. He said that his work was of no value because no one took it seriously. The only ones who didn't take it seriously and threw stones at it was the LEFT- THE LIBERALS, that still to this day support the NIV and the newer versions, men like Metzger an others.



I did not say such steve. I said the reason nobody probably took his work seriously is because imo, he seemed to be displaying absolutely poor scholarship, not being able to talk about even the most basic issues of grammar. I mean, when you can't tell the difference between a word that is clearly neuter, and say its a masculine instead, one has some serious issues.

If one displays such ignorance, no wonder scholars don't even mention Hill, as they might as well be quoting you and your internet posts. I know if I came across a so-called scholar who couldn't even seem to talk about the most basic issues of Greek grammar, I know I would probably ignore whatever he said, and write him off as having nothing of any value to contribute to scholarship.

Stop demonizing everybody who ignores your scholars as far left liberals. Such is the furthest from the truth. I have plenty of conservative books on textual criticism on my bookshelf, and none of them seem to ever mention in their indexes any of the guys you quote from. There is probably a good reason for this, and it's no conspiracy, as a lot of these books are simply survey level books, looking to introduce readers to a very wide spectrum of scholarship, ultra conservative, ultra liberal, and everything in between.


_________________
Jimmy H

 2006/6/17 9:05Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy