Comma Johanneum/1 John 5:7,8
"And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one."(1 John 5:7,8 King James Version & Catholic Douay-Rheims Version).
Regarding this Trinitarian passage, textual critic F. H. A. Scrivener wrote:
“We need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by St. John: that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 1Jo 5:8: that from the Latin they crept into two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the printed Greek text, a place to which they had no rightful claim.”—A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (Cambridge, 1883, third ed.), p. 654.
But what of what John Gill says in his Exposition of the New Testament? In it he writes:
"As to its being wanting in some Greek Manuscripts, as the Alexandrian and others, it need only be said that it is to be found in many others; it is in an old British copy, and in the Complutensian edition, the compilers of which made use of various copies; and out of sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephens' , nine of them had it: and as to its not being cited by some of the ancient Fathers, this can be no sufficient proof of the spuriousness of it, since it might be in the original copy, though not in the copies used by them, through the carelessness or unfaithfulness of transcribers; or it might be in their copies, and yet not cited by them, they having scripture enough without it to defend the doctrine of the Trinity, and the divinity of Christ: and yet after all, certain it is, that it is cited by many of them; by Fulgentius in the beginning of the sixth century, against the Arians, without any scruple or hesitation; and Jerome, as had been observed before it in his translation made in the latter part of the fourth century. In his epistle to Eustochium prefixed to his translation of the canonical epistles, he complains of the omission of it by unfaithful interpreters. It is cited by Athanasius about the year 350; and before him by Cyprian, in the middle of the 3rd century, about the year 250; and is referred to by Tertullian about the year 200; and which was within 100 years, or a little more, of the writing of the epistle; which may be enough to satisfy anyone of the genuineness of the passage; and besides there was never any dispute over it till Erasmus left it out of the first edition of his translation of the New Testament; and yet he himself upon the credit of the old British copy before mentioned, put it into another edition of his translation."
So what is wrong with the above quote?
Gill lived in the 18th century, most of the ancient texts where unknown in his day.
The Comma Johanneum is not in "many other Greek Manuscripts.
It is not in 9 of the 16 used by Stephanus.
It was found in 4 Greek manuscripts that popped up after Erasmus's 2nd edition.
The "ancient" copies of Stephanus did not predate the 10th century.
The "old British Copy" was miniscule 61, which was written after Erasmus's 2nd edition, apparently so that he was forced to include it in his later editions.
Erasmus protested that he was forced to include it under duress.*
Erasmus claimed the comma johanneum was not original.
The Fathers cited by Gill were not citing scripture.
The comma johanneum did not become established until the 5th Century.
It does not appear in Jerome`s Vulgate(Gill didn`t know that there were revisions made after Jerome.["This passage is absent from the original Vulgate, but later found its way into the Latin text and is present in the Clementine edition." The English Bible, F.F. Bruce p.204]
The comma johanneum doesn`t appear in the Vulgate until the 9th century.
In the Eastern Church(orthodox) where Greek was still being used, not ONE manuscript had the comma johanneum.
The Complutensian edition included the comma johanneum because it found it in the Vulgate, not any greek manuscript that we know of.
In the fourth century C.E., in a Latin treatise, an overzealous advocate of the newly framed Trinity teaching evidently included the words "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy spirit; and these three are one" as if these were a quotation from 1 John 5:7. Later that passage crept right into a Latin bible Manuscript. It appears in cursive mss No. 61 (16th century) and No. 629 (in Latin and Greek, 14th to 15th century) and Vgc (Latin Vulgate, Clementine recension).
*Erasmus was attacked for not adding the Comma Johanneum(1John 5:7,8). He answered that he had not found the words in any greek manuscript, including several he examined after publishing his editions. But he unwisely said that he would insert the Comma Johanneum in future editions if a greek manuscript could be found that contained the spurious passage. Interestingly, one was found, or made, that contained the words. The manuscript was made by a Franciscan friar named Froy(or Roy) in 1520 A.D. Erasmus kept his word and added the passage in his 3rd edition, but he added a long footnote expressing his suspicion that the manuscript had been prepared just so to confute him.
Also,
"Luther used the text prepared by Erasmus. But even though the inserted words taught the Trinity, Luther ruled them out and never had them in his translation. In 1550 Bugenhagen objected to these words 'on account of the truth.' In 1574 Feyerabend, a printer, added them to Luther's text, and in 1596 they appeared in the Wittenburg copies." footnote at 1 John 5:7-9 by William F. Beck(The Holy Bible in the Language of Today)
When Erasmus translated his Greek "New Testament," he appealed to the authority of the Vatican Codex to omit the spurious words from 1 John chapter 5, verses 7 and 8. Erasmus was right, yet as late as 1897 Pope Leo XIII upheld the corrupted Latin text of the Vulgate. This insertion was protected by the Vatican until 1927. Only with the publication of modern Roman Catholic translations has this textual error been acknowledged. Thus, a footnote in The Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic translation, says that these words are "not in any of the early Greek MSS [manuscripts], or any of the early translations, or in the best MSS of the Vulg[ate] itself."
In the _Interpreter's Bible_ which can be found in about any county library, the following is stated concerning 1 John 5:7ff:
"This verse in the KJV is to be rejected (with RSV). It appears in no ancient Greek MS nor is it cited by any Greek fathers; of all the versions only the Latin contained it, and even this in none of its most
ancient sources. The earliest MSS of the Vulg. do not have it. As [CH] Dodd (Johannine Epistles, p. 127n) reminds us, "It is first quoted as a part of 1 John by Priscillian, the Spanish heretic, who died in 385, and it gradually made its way into MSS of the Latin Vulgate until it was accepted as part of the authorized Latin text." The mention in the true text (vs. 8) of the three witnesses which agree naturally led to an interpretation along trinitarian lines, and this occasioned the present gloss which appears in various forms in MSS and quotations from the fifth century onward" (Interpreter's Bible, 293-294).
One of the translators of the NIV also writes the following about 1 John 5:7:
"Anyone who uses a recent scholarly version of the NT will see that these words on the Trinity are not in verse 7. This is because they have no basis in the Greek text. Under Roman Catholic pressure, Erasmus inserted them from the Latin Vulgate. They are not a part of the inspired Bible" (Word Meanings in the NT, Ralph Earle. P. 452).
I.H. Marshall's commentary on the Epistles of John states:
"The words in fact occur in none of the Greek manuscripts of 1 John, except for a few late and worthless ones, and are not quoted by any early church writers, not even by those who would have joyfully seized upon this clear biblical testimony to the Trinity in their attacks on heretics: they probably owe their origin to some scribe who wrote them in the margin of his copy of 1 John: later they were erroneously regareded as part of the text. Beyond any shadow of a doubt the wording of the NIV text represents what John actually wrote. We must, therefore, confine our attention to the three witnesses of whom John did write, the Spirit, the water, and the blood" (236).
"Robert M. Grant makes this comment about 1 John 5:6-8:
"To this mysterious but not theologically useful passage a Spanish Pricillianist in the late fourth century added explicitly trinitarian language so that it would mention three witnesses "on earth" and end thus: "And there are three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one." The addition is suitable in a Johannine context, for it refers to the Logos as John does and is ultimately based on "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). Unfortunately it is not genuine, since it appears in no old manuscript or versions or in any early [church] fathers" (_Gods and the One God_, Robert M. Grant. P. 151).
Also read William Barclay's commentary on 1 John and Raymond Brown's extensive treatment of the subject in his Anchor Bible Commentary.
Which texts DO contain these words? "Among the thousands of Greek manuscripts of the NT examined since the time of Erasmus, only three others are known to contain this spurious passage. They are Greg. 88, a 12th century manuscript which has the Comma writen in the margin in a 17th century hand; Tisch. w 110, which is a 16th century manuscript copy of the Complutensian Polyglot Greek text; and Greg. 629. dating from the 14th century or, as Riggenbach has argued, from the latter half of the 16th century." The Text of the New Testament-It Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration [Third Enlraged Edition] by Bruce M. Metzger p.102,103
Or as ERASMUS AND THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS by William W. Combs states:"That the Comma is a later addition to the text can be demonstrated from the fact that it is found in the text of only four manuscripts (61, 629, 918, 2318), the earliest of which is from the fourteenth century, and in the margin of four others (88, 221, 429, 636), the earliest of which is the tenth century. It was not cited in the 4th century Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian) by any Greek Father, an absolutely inexplicable omission had they been aware of the passage. The old Scofield Reference Bible says that it 'has no real authority, and has been inserted' (p. 1325)."
Both 61 and 629 have the Comma but with the omission of the hOI TREIS EIS
TO hEN EISIN. (KATA NOVUM TESTAMENTUM GRAECE, editione vicesima septima
revisa)
"To trace the history of this gross corruption of the text in modern translations, Catechisms, and Confessions of Faith, especially the Greek Church since the sixteenth century, and in modern editions of some ancient versions, as the Peshito Syriac, Armenian, and Slavonic, might be interesting and instructive, psychologically as well as critically; but there is no room for it here."
-Critical Essays by Ezra Abbot, 1888, p.463
"And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one."(1 John 5:7,8 King James Version & Catholic Douay-Rheims Version).
Regarding this Trinitarian passage, textual critic F. H. A. Scrivener wrote:
“We need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by St. John: that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 1Jo 5:8: that from the Latin they crept into two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the printed Greek text, a place to which they had no rightful claim.”—A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (Cambridge, 1883, third ed.), p. 654.
But what of what John Gill says in his Exposition of the New Testament? In it he writes:
"As to its being wanting in some Greek Manuscripts, as the Alexandrian and others, it need only be said that it is to be found in many others; it is in an old British copy, and in the Complutensian edition, the compilers of which made use of various copies; and out of sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephens' , nine of them had it: and as to its not being cited by some of the ancient Fathers, this can be no sufficient proof of the spuriousness of it, since it might be in the original copy, though not in the copies used by them, through the carelessness or unfaithfulness of transcribers; or it might be in their copies, and yet not cited by them, they having scripture enough without it to defend the doctrine of the Trinity, and the divinity of Christ: and yet after all, certain it is, that it is cited by many of them; by Fulgentius in the beginning of the sixth century, against the Arians, without any scruple or hesitation; and Jerome, as had been observed before it in his translation made in the latter part of the fourth century. In his epistle to Eustochium prefixed to his translation of the canonical epistles, he complains of the omission of it by unfaithful interpreters. It is cited by Athanasius about the year 350; and before him by Cyprian, in the middle of the 3rd century, about the year 250; and is referred to by Tertullian about the year 200; and which was within 100 years, or a little more, of the writing of the epistle; which may be enough to satisfy anyone of the genuineness of the passage; and besides there was never any dispute over it till Erasmus left it out of the first edition of his translation of the New Testament; and yet he himself upon the credit of the old British copy before mentioned, put it into another edition of his translation."
So what is wrong with the above quote?
Gill lived in the 18th century, most of the ancient texts where unknown in his day.
The Comma Johanneum is not in "many other Greek Manuscripts.
It is not in 9 of the 16 used by Stephanus.
It was found in 4 Greek manuscripts that popped up after Erasmus's 2nd edition.
The "ancient" copies of Stephanus did not predate the 10th century.
The "old British Copy" was miniscule 61, which was written after Erasmus's 2nd edition, apparently so that he was forced to include it in his later editions.
Erasmus protested that he was forced to include it under duress.*
Erasmus claimed the comma johanneum was not original.
The Fathers cited by Gill were not citing scripture.
The comma johanneum did not become established until the 5th Century.
It does not appear in Jerome`s Vulgate(Gill didn`t know that there were revisions made after Jerome.["This passage is absent from the original Vulgate, but later found its way into the Latin text and is present in the Clementine edition." The English Bible, F.F. Bruce p.204]
The comma johanneum doesn`t appear in the Vulgate until the 9th century.
In the Eastern Church(orthodox) where Greek was still being used, not ONE manuscript had the comma johanneum.
The Complutensian edition included the comma johanneum because it found it in the Vulgate, not any greek manuscript that we know of.
In the fourth century C.E., in a Latin treatise, an overzealous advocate of the newly framed Trinity teaching evidently included the words "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy spirit; and these three are one" as if these were a quotation from 1 John 5:7. Later that passage crept right into a Latin bible Manuscript. It appears in cursive mss No. 61 (16th century) and No. 629 (in Latin and Greek, 14th to 15th century) and Vgc (Latin Vulgate, Clementine recension).
*Erasmus was attacked for not adding the Comma Johanneum(1John 5:7,8). He answered that he had not found the words in any greek manuscript, including several he examined after publishing his editions. But he unwisely said that he would insert the Comma Johanneum in future editions if a greek manuscript could be found that contained the spurious passage. Interestingly, one was found, or made, that contained the words. The manuscript was made by a Franciscan friar named Froy(or Roy) in 1520 A.D. Erasmus kept his word and added the passage in his 3rd edition, but he added a long footnote expressing his suspicion that the manuscript had been prepared just so to confute him.
Also,
"Luther used the text prepared by Erasmus. But even though the inserted words taught the Trinity, Luther ruled them out and never had them in his translation. In 1550 Bugenhagen objected to these words 'on account of the truth.' In 1574 Feyerabend, a printer, added them to Luther's text, and in 1596 they appeared in the Wittenburg copies." footnote at 1 John 5:7-9 by William F. Beck(The Holy Bible in the Language of Today)
When Erasmus translated his Greek "New Testament," he appealed to the authority of the Vatican Codex to omit the spurious words from 1 John chapter 5, verses 7 and 8. Erasmus was right, yet as late as 1897 Pope Leo XIII upheld the corrupted Latin text of the Vulgate. This insertion was protected by the Vatican until 1927. Only with the publication of modern Roman Catholic translations has this textual error been acknowledged. Thus, a footnote in The Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic translation, says that these words are "not in any of the early Greek MSS [manuscripts], or any of the early translations, or in the best MSS of the Vulg[ate] itself."
In the _Interpreter's Bible_ which can be found in about any county library, the following is stated concerning 1 John 5:7ff:
"This verse in the KJV is to be rejected (with RSV). It appears in no ancient Greek MS nor is it cited by any Greek fathers; of all the versions only the Latin contained it, and even this in none of its most
ancient sources. The earliest MSS of the Vulg. do not have it. As [CH] Dodd (Johannine Epistles, p. 127n) reminds us, "It is first quoted as a part of 1 John by Priscillian, the Spanish heretic, who died in 385, and it gradually made its way into MSS of the Latin Vulgate until it was accepted as part of the authorized Latin text." The mention in the true text (vs. 8) of the three witnesses which agree naturally led to an interpretation along trinitarian lines, and this occasioned the present gloss which appears in various forms in MSS and quotations from the fifth century onward" (Interpreter's Bible, 293-294).
One of the translators of the NIV also writes the following about 1 John 5:7:
"Anyone who uses a recent scholarly version of the NT will see that these words on the Trinity are not in verse 7. This is because they have no basis in the Greek text. Under Roman Catholic pressure, Erasmus inserted them from the Latin Vulgate. They are not a part of the inspired Bible" (Word Meanings in the NT, Ralph Earle. P. 452).
I.H. Marshall's commentary on the Epistles of John states:
"The words in fact occur in none of the Greek manuscripts of 1 John, except for a few late and worthless ones, and are not quoted by any early church writers, not even by those who would have joyfully seized upon this clear biblical testimony to the Trinity in their attacks on heretics: they probably owe their origin to some scribe who wrote them in the margin of his copy of 1 John: later they were erroneously regareded as part of the text. Beyond any shadow of a doubt the wording of the NIV text represents what John actually wrote. We must, therefore, confine our attention to the three witnesses of whom John did write, the Spirit, the water, and the blood" (236).
"Robert M. Grant makes this comment about 1 John 5:6-8:
"To this mysterious but not theologically useful passage a Spanish Pricillianist in the late fourth century added explicitly trinitarian language so that it would mention three witnesses "on earth" and end thus: "And there are three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one." The addition is suitable in a Johannine context, for it refers to the Logos as John does and is ultimately based on "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). Unfortunately it is not genuine, since it appears in no old manuscript or versions or in any early [church] fathers" (_Gods and the One God_, Robert M. Grant. P. 151).
Also read William Barclay's commentary on 1 John and Raymond Brown's extensive treatment of the subject in his Anchor Bible Commentary.
Which texts DO contain these words? "Among the thousands of Greek manuscripts of the NT examined since the time of Erasmus, only three others are known to contain this spurious passage. They are Greg. 88, a 12th century manuscript which has the Comma writen in the margin in a 17th century hand; Tisch. w 110, which is a 16th century manuscript copy of the Complutensian Polyglot Greek text; and Greg. 629. dating from the 14th century or, as Riggenbach has argued, from the latter half of the 16th century." The Text of the New Testament-It Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration [Third Enlraged Edition] by Bruce M. Metzger p.102,103
Or as ERASMUS AND THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS by William W. Combs states:"That the Comma is a later addition to the text can be demonstrated from the fact that it is found in the text of only four manuscripts (61, 629, 918, 2318), the earliest of which is from the fourteenth century, and in the margin of four others (88, 221, 429, 636), the earliest of which is the tenth century. It was not cited in the 4th century Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian) by any Greek Father, an absolutely inexplicable omission had they been aware of the passage. The old Scofield Reference Bible says that it 'has no real authority, and has been inserted' (p. 1325)."
Both 61 and 629 have the Comma but with the omission of the hOI TREIS EIS
TO hEN EISIN. (KATA NOVUM TESTAMENTUM GRAECE, editione vicesima septima
revisa)
"To trace the history of this gross corruption of the text in modern translations, Catechisms, and Confessions of Faith, especially the Greek Church since the sixteenth century, and in modern editions of some ancient versions, as the Peshito Syriac, Armenian, and Slavonic, might be interesting and instructive, psychologically as well as critically; but there is no room for it here."
-Critical Essays by Ezra Abbot, 1888, p.463
https://www.academia.edu/29542906/Did_Cyprian_Quote_the_Comma_Johanneum?auto=download
ReplyDelete