SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
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 )

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


Just for discussion's sake, Metzger in his Textual Commentary on the NT offers this brief blurb as to why the comitte he was part of ruled out 1 John 5:7/8:

A) External Evidence (1): 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 16th century.

88 (variant reading): a variant reading in a 16th century hand, added to the 14th century codex Regius of Naples.

221 (variant reading): a variant reading added to a 10th century manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.

429 (variant reading): a variant reading added to a 16th century manuscript at Wolfenbuttel.

636 (variant reading): a variant reading added to a 16th century manuscript at Naples.

918: a 16th century manuscript at Escorial, Spain.

2318: an 18th century manuscript, influenced by Clemenitine Vulgate, at Bucharest, Rumania.

2) The passage is quoted by 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 teh Lateran Council in 1215.

3) The passage is absent from the mansucripts 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 Vulgtate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied A.D. 541-46) and codex Amiatinus [copied before A.D. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).

The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entiteld 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. In the fifth century the glss was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy as part of the text of the Epistle, and from the sixth century onwards it is found more and more frequently in manuscripts of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate. In these various witnesses the wording of the passage differs in several particulars.

(B) Internal Probabilities. (1) As regards transcriptional probability, if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.

2) As regards to intrinsic probability, the passage makes an awkward break in the sense....

Just thought I'd interject these comments.

Jimmy H

 2006/5/31 23:13Profile

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


Just a personal note on the grammar of the passage in question. The participle in question, maturountes, has nothing grammatically to do with the words following after it in 7/8.

"oi maturountes" in 1 John 5:7 is present active participle nominative plural masculine, functioning adjectivally in the sentece (as required by the definite article). Participles agree with the words they are modifying in case, number, and gender. This word's case is nominative. It's number is plural. It's gender is masculine.

It would be IMPOSSIBLE for this word to be modifying any of the words of, "o Pater, o Logos, kai to Agion Pneuma" (the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit) in the TR variant. Likewise, it doesn't modify any of the modern renderings of 7/8 either, "to pneuma kai to udor kai to hima" (the Spirit and the water and the blood). The reason? All these words are all in the SINGULAR. And since participles modify the words that they agree with in case, number, and gender, it would be impossible for "oi maturountes" to modify any of these words, for "oi maturountes" is PLURAL.

The only word that "oi maturountes" can possibly modify is the word "treis" (three) which comes prior to it in verse 7, which is nominative, masculine, and PLURAL. Grammatically, both these variants are rather basic Greek, with no grammatical problems.


(Non-TR) Greek of 1 John 5:7-8:

hoti treis eistin oi maturountes to pneuma kai to hudor kai to hima kai oi treis eis to en eisin

My personal translation:

There are three bearing witness: the Spirit and the water and the blood and these three are in one (agreement).

Jimmy H

 2006/5/31 23:56Profile


Sorry, misunderstood :)

 2006/6/1 0:01

Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 9192
Santa Clara, CA



Saw your comment before you revoked it and this thread was started with a question and it has developed as most threads tend to, all well and good. But, if you cannot keep it charitable and excuse yourself from the use of "moron's" and "boneheads" and other such items I suggest you take it somewhere else, we have a very low tolerance for this sort of thing here. Agree, disagree or leave well enough alone.

The same goes for the remainder here. Take a step back and look what you are disputing over and before who...

Mike Balog

 2006/6/1 0:11Profile

Joined: 2006/2/27
Posts: 12
sheffield, UK


Hi, just to answer 'why only a TR and not UBS4' etc. Already have a UBS4 as well as Metzger's decisions for the the text chosen. But, notwithstanding the current debate, over time I have become convinced of the primacy of TR and it is now my chosen text. I understand other peoples views on this, but, I am happy with the decision I have come to.

My own view on the more vociferous comments is that, I respect other's views and hope that in our zeal we do not fall into the judgement of our brothers and sisters. The truth needs ony love and loyalty as its companions it is powerful enough of its self. Whatever our views, the truth is a sharp edged sword it does not need the blunt instruments of offensive thoughts or words to cut its way through. :-)

nicholas bye

 2006/6/1 5:56Profile


you know simply isnt worth folks believe what you wish..

Crsschck...there was not a single word in what I deleted that was inflammatory, and I resent the implication that there was....I misunderstood what the person was asking, simple as that..

addtionally, I will refrain from using those words.

The Johannine Comma doesnt come from the GMTs, that much is fact....the TR, therefore, is NOT unspoiled *IF* we claim it IS the KJVonlyers often try to assert.

Either the TR IS the GMT and it DOES have additions to the text, the Comma, OR; it simply is NOT the MT, but is based upon them and also upon other texts....thus is NOT this work of perfection that many errantly believe it to be as they also errantly believe of the KJ translation.

either we accept the facts as they stand or we make up reasons to not accept them....regardless, I am done with this thread.

 2006/6/1 11:34

Joined: 2006/1/27
Posts: 202


Hey FOC, :-) what do you think of this? Especially the part I put into bold print?


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. [b]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." [/b][5]


To me this argument is the most conclusive... These early fathers could not have quoted 1 john 5:7, had it not been in the canon.

Notice how clear Priscillian quotes 1 john 5:7-- this is 385ad. So how can people believe 1 John 5:7 was simply a margin note from the 10th century?

And Cyprian (258ad), though I suppose his quote is more debatable... It seems very clear to me. What else could he be quoting, and [i]"likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one'."[/i]

258 AD is pretty early. Before the Alexandrian text even! 8-)

Combat Chuck

 2006/6/10 4:15Profile


I think Id like to see the sources of the comments from Cyprian and Priscillian.

Telling me they said something doesnt make it so.
I want to see exactly what they wrote, *IF* they actually quoted the comma or not.

there is a lot of scripture, OT as well, that shows us the trinity...this conclusion that the three are indeed one can be drawn without the comma entirely.

So far you have presented me with what I saw 100 times already during my studies on this. just quotes, but no sources.
Nothing has convinced me that the comma was original, but only a sidebar notation that ended up in the text.

If you can get the sources of these quotes from these men and link them so i can study them for myself (with all the stuff I saw, I cant remember if I read the actual sources of these comments, I do remember seeing the assertoin that they were made, which I did take into account, but this doesnt prove that the comma was in the original autographs)

Additionally, there is an aspect of this I will not discuss with others so that none of our catholic brethren are offended. Not even thru PMs.
This is one of the topics that got me warned on Christianforums due to some points that need to be made that will offend many catholics as I quickly found discussion about the 'fathers' of the church can do at times when one disagrees with their theology, etc.
If you havent, take a LOT of time to study many of these early church 'fathers' to see what they believed and taught...what they were capable of.
That may help you see that there may be more the the Comma than meets the eye.
Telling me that the 'fathers' quoted the comma doesnt mean much to me, if you understand my meaning.
Showing me that it was actually in MOST of the texts...THAT would prove something to me.

Please see if you can track down the sources of the quotes from those two men and post links and Ill look at the stuff again.

Nothing would please me more than to see that the comma belongs....but then, that would mean that a whole set of greek manuscripts that God allowed the eastern churches to use were 'corrupt' as the GMTs do not support the Comma as a whole.

Quotes of ECFs are meaningless if the majority of texts dont support the Comma.
There are a LOT of things these 'fathers' believed and said that arent exactly IN scripture.

 2006/6/10 12:16

Joined: 2006/1/27
Posts: 202


Cyprian (258 AD) - Treatises 1 5:423.

Priscillian (385 ad) - Liber Apologeticus.

Combat Chuck

 2006/6/10 13:51Profile


Ill take a look at those as soon as I can.

I hope you understood my post completely. I am trying to not offend anyone, but let you see that there is more to my opinion than simply someone saying that the Comma was a notation that entered the text.

Quotes of these men sadly isnt enough to prove anything.
Not even a direct quote of the Comma in 150 a.d. would prove anything as it could well have been added to one or more "minority" texts (not that this is the case, merely an example) and still not have been present in the original authographs or in the Majority of manuscripts in circulation in the church.

I pray you see the direction Im going and you understand why I will most likely have to maintain my current understanding on this.

 2006/6/10 14:05

Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy