Hi,
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.
A Defense of the Johannine Comma
Setting the Record Straight on I John 5:7-8
Tim Dunkin
http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/1john5n7.html
James
Show message history
Steven
Thanks. I usually pay little attention to Greek ms. issues.
I'll see if I can contact Tim and compare notes on that section.
Steven
"I do not know of many researchers who have looked into the question in any depth since the Preface was found in Codex Fuldensis."
James,
Nor do I. It seems to be a neglected topic; I would call it ossified scholarship too except there doesn't seem to be much scholarship to ossify about this, just an assumption.
Steven
There is a fair amount, almost all before Fuldensis. The quality of it varies, some is in Latin.
From my own studies the general logical and conclusion of Tim is spot-on. Antoine Eugène Genoud in the Sainte Bible Volume 5, 1839, p.681-682. commentary described the reasons given for claiming a forgery as frivolous. My research so far says that Genoud was spot-on and it is a fascinating study. Remember, the first accusations came after the beginning of the heavenly witnesses verse debate
When, by God's grace, I write a section on the Vulgate Prologue issues, there might be a few things different than what you see in Tim's paper. If you like, I could go into this more, either the historical scholarship or the detail analysis.
Steven:
"There is a lot of evidence to consider about the tampering historical concerns . . . ."
James,
Evidence of possibilities is not evidence of actual events. On a practical level, I don't think you'll get anywhere with that approach because it simply
sounds too conspiratorial and Is Not Evidence.... My point about Tim's statement is that it is a statement about a possibility that the evidence may /allow/; whereas reader-persuading statements tend to be statements that are, and appear to be, /evidence-driven/.
Steven
You missed the point. There are specific discussions in the early church writings as well as issues visible with specific variants. While it is not generally my issue, I felt a need to correct your misrepresentation that there is only speculation of no value when discussing theories of textual tampering.
If you really want to criticize speculation, you could deal with the theories that Cyprian was actually making a commentary on verse 8, this became a marginal note, and it quickly overran the Latin textline.
Wait .. that is your theory !
Against huge difficulties on every end, many pointed out by Cornwall.
James,
At the moment it looks like Rummel is correct. Is de Jonge still alive? I thought he died a couple of years ago. (And, touch , I meant Rummel, not Kummel.)
Steven
No wonder I could not find your reference.
Henk Jan de Jonge, afaik, is 69 years young, and is listed as :
Henk Jan de Jonge is emeritus Professor of New Testament and Early Christian Literature at Leiden University.
1 August 2012 - July 2013: President of the international Society for New Testament Studies.
https://sites.google.com/site/henkjandejonge/home
https://sites.google.com/site/henkjandejonge/curriculumvitae
And I read the Henk de Jonge original 1980 paper, Rummel's section, and the de Jonge's note to Michael Maynard about the Rummel response, where he said specifically that Rummel :
"cuts the quotation short, so that the real sense of the passage becomes unrecognizable. She is absolutely not justified in speaking of a challenge in this case or in the case of any other passage on the subject."
Please understand gathering your information from a censorship-oriented forum is not likely to lead to very accurate and complete information 
.
While I personally believe the whole "Erasmus promise" issue is given way too much ink in most writings about our verse, it arose is because of how it was abused from Porson to Metzger as an agitprop theme. So I spend a little time making the correction.
James
"Dunkin completely misrepresents the testimony of De Rebaptismate; it is as clear as day that the CJ was not in the author's text of First John."]
Steven
"No, you are wrong on this. Not just the very astute Arthur Cleveland Coxe writes on this, properly referenced by Tim, even Westcott saw this as a positive
evidence."
James Snapp
I don't see how anyone could draw such a conclusion. You're welcome to zoom in on this to get it sorted out. (Perhaps someone has misunderstood another
writer's turgid syntax??)
Steven
We already covered this to some extent on TC-Alternate, you can see the turgid syntax of Westcott (who is likely not as bad as Hort).
Ps-Cyprian and Rebaptism
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TC-Alternate-list/message/4514
Note that after that post was written, the "Ps-Cyprian" issue was unraveled, it is aprarently a reference to yet another early evidence:
The Hundredfold Reward for Martyrs and Ascetics: De centesima, sexagesimal tricesima
Steven
[On the Armenian Version's testimony to I Jn. 5:7] "I find both Tim's writing and yours as helpful, the only disagreement, if there is one, is emphasis."
James (now)
No; we disagree almost diametrically about this; he interprets the presence of the CJ in Armenian copies from the 1300's as if it implies that the CJ was in the initial base-text of Mesrop c. 411, or in the base-text used for the revision of the Armenian version c. 431,
Steven
Tim only said that it is an evidence in that direction.
James
whereas I insist that it reflects much later Catholic influence (i.e., when and where the Vulgate spread into Armenia, attempts were made to conform Armenian texts to the Vulgate).
Steven
You were not insisting in your last post, you carefully pointed out the difficulties in this realm and that your theories were at times head-toppings from the Bermuda Triangle .
James (earlier)
Fourteenth, by 1307, parts of Armenia were heavily influenced by Catholicism, so it is no surprise to see that conformation to the Vulgate text (with the CJ) was well underway by that time. The Armenian Version in the Middle Ages is a veritable Bermuda Triangle of research, but I think a pattern could be established (if Armenian researchers not-named-Nersessian would ever bother to publish anything in English; grr!) showing that the Armenian Version was adjusted to conform to certain aspects of the Vulgate such as the inclusion of the CJ, particularly in Cilician Armenian MSS (although Dunkin is correct that this was not due to any act by Haitho).
The same influence, I suspect (although this is off the top of my head; see Nersessian for details), can be observed when it comes to the canon; the canon in the
Cilician Armenian MSS tend to match the Roman Catholic canon.
Steven
you are hardening your position to be contrary. Anyway, I do tend to sympathize with your interpretation of the history, so I have no objection to your offering counterpoint on this.
Steven
"Quite clearly, this (Tertullian) is a reference to the Comma."
James
I don't see why you think this is a clear reference. It does not look clear to me. Perhaps we should look over that material by Pieper that you mentioned.
Steven
George Wade has a nice section on this as well, as do some other writers.
I'll have to look and see if I have Pieper in type-text, OCR-ready, or what. I'll make a note to check, he is very good.
Please note that you incorrectly ascribed Tim's actual words to me.
Here is what I wrote and will defend unto precision of wording:
> It is definitely clear testimony .. easy to understand .. the only question is the strength of the testimony. I think Arthur Cleveland Coxe and Nathaniel Ellsworth Cornwall address it nicely, as does Tim. Clearly, the many corroborative evidences of that period strengthen each other, dynamically, logarithmically if you will, to those who try to see the full picture.
Steven
"Have you gone over all the references in Carthage, Varimadum and the Twelve Books of the Trinity ?"
James
Well I have not done so today? But to keep the discussion focused, I withdraw the question (about why V. Tapsensis' non-TR rendering of I Jn. 5:8 poses no
problem although his rendering of I Jn. 5:7 is so weighty).
Steven
This is trivial. If a person shows that they have the heavenly witnesses, the fact that they have variants in the earthly witnesses is not a negation at all. In fact, Nathaniel Ellis Cornwall, in the article you recommend, shows very powerfully how those very same variants demonstrate that the Latin of the heavenly witnesses section came from Greek exemplars.
That point should be your more profitable emphasis, even regarding the variant of 1 John 5:8 in Virgilius Tapsensis.
Steven
"This [Augustine's Trinitarian allegorical interpretation of I John 5:8] is covered in a number of excellent sections which I could pull out for you separately. In fact, if I remember, I answered the censored BVDB folks on that exact point on another forum, you did not read it because of the BVDB censorship."
James
The Squarespace link was taking too long to load on my computer
Steven
My apologies for giving you the wrong link.
This should be helpful, I will include a bit more, the first two are intro ..
You could go to post #125 and simply read down the 3 posts.
I John 5:7
The silence of Augustine, contrary to prevailing opinion, cannot be cited as evidence #116 6-24-2010
http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/76509-i-john-5-7-a-12.html#post177869
Raymond Brown on the Norbert Fickermann paper on Augustine - 9-24-2012 #122
http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/76509-i-john-5-7-a-13.html#post2124147
Contra Maximinum - Thomas Joseph Lamy contextual analysis - and more
Posts #125 #126 and #130
http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/76509-i-john-5-7-a-13.html#post2124194
This link is given because it directly responds to your specific question, in my words.
If you like I can cut and paste the sections into here.
KJV-Today on Augustine does not add much, misses a lot, and is partly conjecture that I find so-so.
Augustine (410)
http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/the-father-the-word-and-the-holy-ghost-in-1-john-57#TOC-Augustine-410 -
James
> So: why do *you* think that Augustine's statement implies that he was aware of the existence of the CJ?
Steven
See my links above, from my past writings. I agree with Lamy and Burgess and note the significant Fickerman evidence, and other allusions like from City of God. Incidentally, John Jones is interesting, if a bit unusual, on Augustine as well.
James
(No fair consulting the link that I provide near the end of this post first!)
Steven
In general, I am well aware of the KJVToday argumentation I do not think I have used them on this question.
Steven
[Athanasius used the CJ in . . .] Disputati Contra Arium.
Steven
That is quoting Tim.. please keep this distinction correct in the future.
James
That's an 82-page non-searchable file!! I'm not looking through that just so that I can report that Athanasius does not make any distinct reference to the unified witness of the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. (Do you have a page-and-line reference?) Fortunately I've managed to take a shortcut and find the relevant Greek snippet: Athanasius simply says, after stating that remission of sins is procured by baptism administered to the faithful in the thrice-blessed name, "And besides all these, John says, `And the three are one.'" Greek: KAI OI TREIS TO EN EISIN, which corresponds to 5:8b as well as it does to 5:7b. This might be granted as evidence that Athanasius interpreted I John 5:8 allegorically, but not as evidence that he possessed Greek copies of First John containing the CJ.
"Likewise is not the remission of sins procured by that quickening and sanctifying ablution, without which no man shall see the kingdom of heaven, an ablution given to the faithful in the thrice-blessed name. And besides all these, John says, And the three are one."
This is a clear allusion, considering that it is a doctrinal disputation with the Arians, even accepted by some of the Hortian apparatus mechanisms, such as UBS-3.
[TC-Alternate-list] heavenly witnesses - Disputation of Athanasius with Arius - UBS-4 omission
Steven Avery - Oct 2, 2011
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TC-Alternate-list/message/4561
As Daniel wrote :
[TC-Alternate-list] heavenly witnesses - Disputation of Athanasius with Arius - UBS-4 omission
Steven Avery - Oct 3, 2011
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TC-Alternate-list/message/4567
Hmmm. There doesn't seem to be much reason to exclude this witness, other than that it was for inclusion--as if that was a valid reason. It has the following essesial elements:
1) John is being quoted by name.
2) The quotation matches up with the text of 1 John 5:7-8.
3) And--purely as a bonus--the context seems to be over the question of Trinitarianism (especially given the reputed actors in the disputation).
KJV-Today adds some good, some so-so points to this Athanasius issue:
KJV-Today
Athanasius appears to have quoted the Comma in Disputatio Contra Arium:
http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/the-father-the-word-and-the-holy-ghost-in-1-john-57#TOC-Athanasius
James
On a related point:
SA: "In my last post, I wrote the first Peshitta printing as 1561. I am not sure of the exact year."
Then take in hand the edited extract from Michaelis, describing the Peshitta, that I recently put in the Files!
Steven
Thanks for supplying the resource. Time has been limited and that exact year is not so important, since my point was that it was after Stephanus 1550 and before the later Beza editions. I do hope to study that Michaelis section. It would be interesting to compare his argumentation with the Oxford debate of 1897 (Gwilliam, Miller, Sanday, Headlam, et al).
Steven
"If you know of any stronger, taking any position, please share away."
James
Well, Cornwall, with his quotation from Greg-Naz, makes the strongest grammar-based case,
Steven
Daniel was wondering about this, could you supply the page # - url, on a quick check I am not sure as to what you are referring.
James
but at
http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/the-father-the-word-and-the-holy-ghost-in-1-john-57 there is presentation which, I imagine, is extremely effective (although part of the reason why it probably persuades persons new to the issue is its abundance of one-sided evidence-distortions). Despite this presentation's numerous overstatements and flaws, it also has a few sharp points, one of which involves the transmission of I John 2:23.
Steven
That section about 1 John variants is very good.
James
and one of which involves Athanasius' rare usage of Mt. 28:19,
Steven
Also a good point, some of those points are a smidgen uneven (eg. with Eusebius) but generally it is quite good.
James
and one of which involves several illustrations (with illustrations from pictures of MSS) of parableptic error, along with a well-made
reconstruction. Further down the page, there's a nice chart, too.
Steven
Agreed. Nice presentation.
Steven
