the Greek and Russian Orthodox acceptance of the Reformation Bible correction/inclusion of the heavenly witnesses

Steven Avery

Administrator
the Greek and Russian Orthodox acceptance of the Reformation Bible correction/inclusion of the heavenly witnesses
Romanian, Serbian Ukrainian, etc.


sister thread
Eugenius Bulgaris on the solecism, include bio on post#6


Facebook Resources

Facebook discussion on the Greek Orthodox Bibles
Textus Receptus Bibles
https://www.facebook.com/groups/receivedtext/permalink/2145700149013690/?comment_id=2146167285633643&comment_tracking={"tn":"R"}

Facebook on Pure Bible Forum
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/864267393665151/
New post coming, Nov, 2018

Facebook thread that includes Cyril Lucaris, discussion with Albert Hembd
https://www.facebook.com/groups/receivedtext/permalink/1887745394809168/

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

The heavenly witnesses and Acts 8:37 were largely placed in the Greek and Russian Orthodox Bibles after the Reformation correction.

Eugenius Bulgaris clearly led one strong push for this acceptance of the heavenly witnesses.
Russian Orthodox - (and Romanian, Serbian )

Grantley McDonald has at least one good section, in the context of Slavonic evidences, Grantley tries to spin them but they show the strong acceptance.


Biblical Criticism in Early Modern Europe (2016)
By Grantley McDonald
https://books.google.com/books?id=Q6BODAAAQBAJ&pg=PA113


The comma gradually gained a certain currency in the Slavonic churches as a result of the well-concealed appropriation of western attitudes to Scripture. It was quoted in the Orthodox Confession of the eastern church, drawn up in 1643 under the direction of Peter Mogilas, metropolitan of Kiev. This document, which distinguished the eastern position clearly from those of the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches, was adopted by the Graeco-Russian synod at Jassy (1643) and the synod of Jerusalem (1672). Ironically, the comma - quoted from Bezes text - was deployed in the Confession as a weapon against the western doctrine of the filioque.156 The comma was included in a Slavonic Apostolos printed in 1653, probably under the influence of Mogilas’ Confession.157

156 Schaff 1919, 2:275; text is given in Kimmel 1843, 64-65, and Schaff 1919, 2:283-284.
157 Porson 1790, xi-xii; Michaelis 1793-1801, 2,1:156.

The slur on the church usages is typical Grantley - "the well-concealed appropriation of western attitudes to Scripture." In fact, we see enthusiastic usages and defenses of authenticity, and the realization that the texts had been subject to corruption.

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

Research Help Possible
Azim Mamanov, Takis. Georg


American Ecclesiastical Review (1897)
Thomas Joseph Lamy (1827-1907)
http://books.google.com/books?id=EAPOAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA477

It is worthy of note that the Russian and Greek Churches, which claim the name of Orthodox, admit verse 7. One of the leading theologians of the Russian Church, Macarius Bulgakov, who had been a member of the Holy Synod and died as Archbishop of Moscow, writes in his Dogmatic Theology:


“The whole Orthodox Church has acknowledged and does acknowledge to-day, as authentic, the text of the Epistle of St. John, which we have just examined, and she proposes it to her children for their common instruction.” 2

He had previously said:

“It is without reason that some attempt to render the authenticity of the passage in question doubtful, under the pretext that it is wanting in some Greek codices of the New Testament. Our theologians have always made use of that text.”

And he cites Theophanus Prokopow, Hyacinth Karspinski, Ireneus Falcowski and Sylvester.3

2 Thiologie Dogmatique Orthodoxe, traduite par un Russe. Paris, 1859. I., pg. 228.
3 Ibid., pg. 222.
The note from Macarius can be seen here:

Théologie dogmatique orthodoxe, traduite par un Russe, Volume 1 (1859)
Mich. B. Macaire
http://books.google.com/books?id=UylAAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA222
https://archive.org/details/thologiedogmati01makagoog/page/n245

(I) Non-seulement plusieurs auteurs protestants, mais aussi quelques écrivains de l'Église romaine. Nos théologiens, au contraire, se sont toujours servis de ce texte; quelques-uns même en ont défendu l'authenticité, bien qu’en peu de mots. (Vid.Theoph. Prokopow. Theolog., vol. I, de S. Trinitate, cap. 2, p. 542-544, Lips., 1782; Théol. dogm. de Macarius, chap. 3, p. 35, Mosq., 1786; Hyacinth. Karpinski Compend. theolog., cap. 2, sect, 2, p. 87, Lips., 1786; Iren. Falkowski Compend. theolog., lib 2, cap 2, p. 78, Mosq.. 1802; Sylvestr. Compendium theolog., cap. 21, p. 128, Mosq., 1805.)

The section is from p. 220-228, also see p. 231. The grammatical solecism in the corruption text is on p. 227. Also p. 83 shows how the heavenly witnesses is highlighted.

Pre-Reformation restoration of the full heavenly-earthly witnesses text

Lateran Council
Synod of Sis (Armenian)

Manuel Calecas (fl. 1360)
http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Calecas

Joseph Bryennius (1350-1430)
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1558913

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


Luminaries in the Orthodox Bible world

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

Cyril Lucaris (1572-1638)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Lucaris

Maximos of Gallipoli (d. 1633) (Greek: Μάξιμος Καλλιπολίτης; Latin: Maximus Callipolites) Maximos Kallipolites
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximos_of_Gallipoli

His Bible text is given in Biblical Criticism p. 112, from Bludau

Cyril and Maximos were involved with the first Greek New Testament in modern Greek, with the heavenly witnesses, published in 1638 in Geneva, followed by a later London edition. This included the heavenly witnesses without any special notes, as pointed out by

Thirteen Sermons (1722)
Edmund Calamy
http://books.google.com/books?id=WhwtAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA523


“An overview of the New Testament translations in vernacular Greek during the printing era”
Pavlos D Vasileiadis
https://www.academia.edu/38648487/_...s_in_vernacular_Greek_during_the_printing_era

The first modern Greek NT was prepared between 1629 and 1632 by the learned hieromonk Maximos Rodios Kallipolitis (or Kallioupolitis, d. 1633), under the auspices of Cyril I Lucaris, the then Patriarch of Constantinople, and was published posthumously in two volumes by Protestant publishers in Geneva in 1638. In the same year Lucaris was accused of plotting with Russia to stir up the Cossacks against Ottoman domination, arrested, and executed at the order of Sultan Murad IV—just a few months before publication. The Swiss Calvinist theologian David Le Clerc, a late professor of Oriental languages at the University of Geneva, and his brother Stephen Le Clerc, a professor of the Greek language at the same university, were appointed to correct Maximos’s translation after he died. This was the first serious attempt to make the NT more accessible and in a language comprehensible to the common people. It was also virtually the one and only in Greek initiated from top-to-bottom by the hierarchy of the Greek Church. In the prologue, attributed to Loukaris himself, it is stated that the purpose of the publication was that the ‘faithful would be able to read the Bible alone and by themselves’ (νὰ γροικήσουν τὴν θείαν γραφήν καθ' ἑαυτοὺς ἀναγινώσκοντες ). ...

Despite the fierce opposition, it seems that Maximos’s NT had numerous successive corrections and editions, even by the Russian Bible Society. It was also attached to the Albanian translation published in Corfu in 1827 by the Ionian Bible Society and circulated, even in lectionary form, for liturgical use in the Greek Orthodox churches without the original text ... Maximos’s version has been described as “one of the masterpieces of Greek literary language to this day.”

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

Peter Simeonovich Mogila - (1596-1646) - Romanian Orthodox - Metropolitan of Kiev
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Mogila

Græco-Russian Synod at Jassy, 1643 - Orthodox Confession of Faith - signed by the Eastern Patriarchs

Synod of Jerusalem, 1672 - approves Confession

Silvestre Medvedev (1641-1693)

In the seventeenth century, many Russian Orthodox clerics, while wishing to legitimate their own church by emphasising its unbroken links with Byzantium, nevertheless argued that many Greek texts had been corrupted either by Greek heretics (an argument promoted by Szymon Budny), or more recently by western (especially German) editors who prepared them for the press. Some, such as Sil'vestr Medvedev (1688), even marshalled both arguments, apparently unconcerned that they are mutually contradictory: the first assumes that Greek texts are invariably corrupt, while the second presupposes that they were reliable until corrupted by western interference.

Grantley's idea that a few focused early omissions implies "invariably corrupt" is obviously not sound logically.

Biblical Criticism p. 112, one source ref is:
Frick, David A. Polish sacred philology in the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation: chapters
in the history of the controversies
(1551-1632). Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989.

Theophane Prokopowicz- Feofan Prokopovic - (1681-1736)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feofan_Prokopovich

Vid.Theoph. Prokopow. Theolog., vol. I, de S. Trinitate, cap. 2, p. 542-544, Lips., 1782
"vigorous defense of the verse in the 1700s "

Hyacinth Karpinski - (1721-1798) Russian Orthodox
http://books.google.com/books?id=xDDPmim_6GsC&pg=PA310

Marcarius - Hyacinth. Karpinski Compend. theolog., cap. 2, sect, 2, p. 87, Lips 1786

Eugenius Voulgaris - Bulgaris (1718-1806)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenios_Voulgaris

Gorodetsky Nikolai Ivanovich Platon, Metropolitan of Moscow, (1737-1812)
https://www.prlib.ru/en/section/684011

Ireneus (Ivan) Yakimovich Falkowsky- Іриней Фальковський - Іван Якимович Фальковський (1762-1823)
https://books.google.com/books?id=rq8YAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA324
http://www.spadshina.com/programs/vidatni-ukrayintsi/falkovskij-ivan-yakimovich/
Iren. Falkowski Compend. theolog., lib 2, cap 2, p. 78, Mosq.. 1802

Sylvestr. Compendium theolog., cap. 21, p. 128, Mosq., 1805.)

Neophytus Vamvas (1770-1856)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neophytos_Vamvas

Theofan Stilian Noli, (1882-1865) Albanian Orthodox - omits
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theofan_Stilian_Noli

Macarius (1816-1882) - Mikhail Petrovich Bulgakov, Михаил Петрович Булгаков, Metropolitan of Moscow
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macarius_Bulgakov
Section on the heavenly witnesses
https://books.google.com/books?id=JwARAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA220 p. 220-228
Théol. dogm. de Macarius, chap. 3, p. 35, Mosq., 1786

John of Kronstadt (1829-1908) - Russian Orthodox
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_Kronstadt

Philotheos (Bryennios) of Nicomedia (1833-1917)
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Philotheos_(Bryennios)_of_Nicomedia

Alexandros Palis (1851-1935)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandros_Pallis

Vasilios Antoniades (1861-1932)
https://books.google.com/books?id=unBpAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA187

1904 Greek Patriarchal Edition
https://www.ellopos.com/blog/1599/i...nical-patriarchate-and-future-perspectives/3/
Vasilios Antoniades
Michael Kleovoulos of Sardis
Apostolos Christodoulou of Stavroupoli
...the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the late 19[SUP]th[/SUP] century (more specifically, in 1899) assigned a three-member committee consisting of two Metropolitans (Michael Kleovoulos of Sardis and Apostolos Christodoulou of Stavroupoli) as well as of Vasileios Antoniades, professor at the Theological School of Chalki, with the task of collecting and studying the manuscripts of Constantinople and Mount Athos,and with the preparation of a Greek edition of the New Testament that would provide “the best reconstruction of the most ancient text of ecclesiastical tradition and, more specifically, of the Church of Constantinople”

John Werle Rife on "The Antoniades Greek New Testament"
https://www.academia.edu/7379175/John_Werle_Rife_on_The_Antoniades_Greek_New_Testament_

Preface from Antoniades scholars with errors and blunders.

1619151674216.png


Note how these "scholars" also whine about the Pericope Adulterae

1619153856780.png

https://www.academia.edu/7327735/Th...nt_and_its_reception_in_the_East_and_the_West


Vladimir Lossky (1903-1958)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lossky

John Zizioulas (b. 1931)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Zizioulas

Georges Vasilievich Florovsky (1893-1979)- historian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Florovsky

Johannes Karavidopoulos - Ιωάννης Καραβιδόπουλος, (b. 1937)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Karavidopoulos
(NA27, omits)
Textual Criticism in the Orthodox Church
http://www.academia.edu/2563944/Textual_criticism_in_the_Orthodox_Church

Yuri Valerevich Maximov (b-1979-) -
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Yuri_Maximov
.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Peter Mogila - The Orthodox Confession of the Eastern Church - 1643

Peter Simeonovich Mogila - (1596-1646) - Romanian Orthodox - Metropolitan of Kiev
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Mogila

Petru Movilă, Ukrainian (Петру Мовилэ)
Петро Симеонович Могила, Polish
Piotr Mohyła, Romanian
Petru Movilă, Russian (Пётр Симео́нович Моги́ла)

Harvard Ukrainian Studies
The Many Worlds of Peter Mohyla (1984) - free
Ihor Ševcenko
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41036024

The Russian Review
Peter Mogila-Metropolitan of Kiev (1955)
Hugh F. Graham
https://www.jstor.org/stable/125890

Charles Butler
https://books.google.com/books?id=MHVAAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA283

THE ORTHODOX CONFESSION OF THE EASTERN CHURCH. A.D. 1643.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.vi.i.html
https://books.google.com/books?id=15sPAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA283

[The Orthodox Confession of Faith of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East (also called Catechism from its method) was drawn up by Peter Mogilas, Metropolitan of Kieff, the father of Russian theology (d. 1647), or under his direction, and was revised and adopted by the Græco-Russian Synod at Jassy, 1643, signed by the Eastern Patriarchs, and approved again by the Synod of Jerusalem, 1672.

Atqui Pater natura verus et æternus Deus est, rerumque omnium, quæ sub adspectum veniunt aut non veniunt, conditor; talis igitur omnino tum Filius est, tum Spiritus Sanctus, sibique invicem consubstantiales sunt, docente ita Joanne Evangelista (1 Joh. v. 7):

Ἀλλὰ μὴν ὁ Πατὴρ εἶναι Θεὸς κατὰ φύσιν ἀληθὴς καὶ αἰώνιος, καὶ πὰντων ποιητὴς τῶν ὁρατῶν καὶ ἀοράτων, τοιοῦτος λοιπὸν εἶναι καὶ ὁ Υἱὸς καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα. Καὶ εἶναι ὁμοούσια ἀλλήλοις, κατὰ τὴν διδασκαλίαν τοῦ Εὐαγγελιστοῦ Ἰωάννου, ὁποῦ λέγει (ά. Ἰωαν. έ. ζʹ.)· ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατὴρ, ὁ Λόγος καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν.

BCEME - Grantley McDonald
https://books.google.com/books?id=Q6BODAAAQBAJ&pg=PA113
The comma gradually gained a certain currency in the Slavonic churches as a result of the well-concealed appropriation of western attitudes
to Scripture. It was quoted in the Orthodox Confession of the eastern church, drawn up in 1643 under the direction of Peter Mogilas, metropolitan of Kiev. This document, which distinguished the eastern position clearly from those of the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches, was adopted by the Graeco-Russian synod at Jassy (1643) and the synod of Jerusalem (1672). Ironically, the comma - quoted from Bèze'’s text - was deployed in the Confession as a weapon against the western doctrine of the filioque. 156 The comma was included in a Slavonic Apostolos printed in 1653, probably under the influence of Mogilas’ Confession.'57

156 Schaff 1919, 2:275; the text is given in Kimmel 1843, 64-65, and Schaff 1919, 2:283-284.
157 Porson 1790, xi-xii; Michaelis 1793-1801, 2,1:156.

https://books.google.com/books?id=Q6BODAAAQBAJ&pg=PA158
p. 158
However, Smirh did bring one new piece of evidence for the acceptance of the comma outside the western church. He cited the Orthodox
Confession of Peter Mogilas (1654) as evidence that the comma was an established part of the eastern Scriptures and religious texts, evidently unaware that the reading of the comma in that document was taken from Bèze'’s text. Smith also made the startling claim that the evidence for the comma in both Latin and Greek manuscripts was so compelling that neither ‘Erasmus, Sozzini, Sand nor Simon have called it into doubt’. For Smith, the only room for critical disagreement was the extent to which a given manuscript corresponded to the autograph.

Quaestiones Aliae Quoted and Ascribed to Athanasius in Eastern Orthdox Confession of 1643 AD.
This is covered by Mike Ferrando.
 

Attachments

  • 1617950190327.png
    1617950190327.png
    117.4 KB · Views: 30
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Cyril Lucaris and Greek Bible editions

From Received Text on Facebook - pictures needed to be added.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/rec...comment_id=1897264870523887&comment_tracking={"tn"%3A"R9"}

Edmund Calamy (1722) argued that Cyril would not have agreed for the verse to be in the Maximos (Maximus) Rodios of Gallipoli. translation unless it was in some Greek manuscripts.
http://books.google.com/books?id=WhwtAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA523

"Nor have we any reason to suppose, that either Maximus the Translator, or Cyrillus Lucaris, who was at that Time Patriarch of Constantinople (who also prefix'd a Preface to it) would have inserted this Text, if it was not to have been found in any of their Greek MSS."

It would be nice to see if that Geneva 1638, or the London 1703 editions are online. Geneva is ancient and modern Greek in two columns, not sure about London.

Note that a major stash of his mss went down in a storm per Edward Pococke (wiki).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Lucaris

Another possibility:

Paschalis Kitromilides suggests that Maximus used Giovanni Diodati's modern Italian version of the New Testament as a model for his own translation (Kitromilides 2006:200).
http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2305-445X2015000100021

Cover Pic
http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions...e-levant-a-private-library-l08413/lot.18.html

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

Here is a bit about that Greek New Testament lineage:

Greek: Modern Bible History
http://gochristianhelps.com/iccm/greek/modgrekh.htm

1638 New Testament [Pierre] Aubert, Geneva
The first published Modern Greek N.T., printed with Ancient Greek.
The Modern Greek text, prepared by a Greek monk named Maximus,
was published at the expense of the Dutch States-General.

A revised text, edited by a defrocked priest named Seraphim, was published by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in 1703."--1000 Tongues [Info only: monk?]

"1710 New Testament Orphan House, Halle [Lutheran]
A revision of Maximus’ text, with corrections by Anastasius Michael, edited by August H. Francke. It was often reprinted. The first edition by the BFBS published in 1810; by the Russian BS in 1817. Numerous editions with slight revisions appeared, notably recensions by G. C. Renouard and Thomas Pell Platt, 1824; by D. Schinas, 1927; by H. D. Leeves, 1830."--1000 Tongues [Info only: 1927 probably should be 1827. Was NT being changed?]

1638
1710
1810
1817
1824
1827
1839

"This Greek New Testament was later made the basis for the Greek New Testament printed by the British and Foreign Bible Society. Cf. Rufus Anderson, Observations upon the Peloponnesus and Greek Islands, made in 1829. Boston: Crocker and Brewster, 1830:280. "

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

These two references could use a little translation:

Prudent Maran (1746)
http://books.google.com/books?id=_MrSYQDpP4gC&pg=PA157

The John Selden Latin reference (1653)
https://books.google.com/books?id=Gq5DAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA579

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

Then there was the vigorous defense of the verse in the 1700s by Greek Orthodox writers. Theophane Prokopowicz and Feofan Prokopovic may have good material. Later, of course, you get the incredible contribution of Eugenius Bulgaris.

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

However, the 1643 Confession already strongly affirmed the heavenly witnesses:

The Orthodox Confession of the Eastern Church A.D. 1643.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.vi.i.html

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

The earlier 1629 Latin Confession of Cyril was light on scripture referencing on this site:
http://www.crivoice.org/creedcyril.html

However:

Cyril makes scriptural references at the end of each article in order to strengthen his position and argument (Maloney 1976:130)
http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2305-445X2015000100021

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

There could be hints in his correspondence east and west.

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

A bit about the 1638 ground-breaking (!) Bible edition:

The 'Calvinist Patriarch' Cyril Lucaris and his Bible translations*
Antony J Khokhar
Université catholique de Louvain Belgium
http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2305-445X2015000100021

New Testament in Modern Greek
.... The title of the text, without spaces, is ...
"ΗΚαινήΔιαθήκητουΚυρίουημώνΙησούΧριστού: Δίγλωττος, Ενηαντιπροσώπωςτοτεθείονπρωτότυπονκαιηαπαραλλάκτωςεξεκείνουειςαπλήνδιάλεκτον, διάτουμακαρίτουκυρίουΜαξίμουτουΚαλλιουπολίτουγενομένημετάφρασιςάμαετυπώθησαν,"
"ΗΚαινήΔιαθήκητουΚυρίουημώνΙησούΧριστού: Δίγλωττος, Ενηαντιπροσώπωςτοτεθείονπρωτότυπονκαιηαπαραλλάκτωςεξεκείνουειςαπλήνδιάλεκτον, διάτουμακαρίτουκυρίουΜαξίμουτουΚαλλιουπολίτουγενομένημετάφρασιςάμαετυπώθησαν,"

A rough translation of the title would read thus:
"The new covenant of Our Lord Jesus Christ: in two languages, one with the face towards the divine original and precisely similar to the other in a simple language, through the blessed lord Maximus Kallioupolitos a translation was made and simultaneously written down."

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

Interesting:

There are doubts about the authenticity of the Confession of Faith. Some hold that the Confession of Faith was the work of the Jesuits to malign Cyril. A Diomedes Kyriakos is one among such thinkers. M Gedeon and Chrysostom Papadopoulos suggest that it was the work of the Protestants in the name of Cyril Lucaris. A Diamantopoulos argues that it was in fact a malicious act of Léger. For further reference, see Hadjiantoniou 1961:102-103; Kitromilides 2006:197-198. The majority, however, supports the argument that the Confession of Faith is indeed the authentic work of Cyril, because he himself signed the Greek text at Geneva. This text has been preserved in the public library at Geneva. Cf., Toynbee 1954:157.

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

The New Testament in Modern Greek

The most important pastoral initiative undertaken by Cyril Lucaris, in the words of Paschalis Kitromilides, is the translation of the New Testament (Kitromilides 2006:200). Cyril wanted his flock to have access to the Sacred Scriptures in Modern Greek.11
...
Although this was not the first ever attempt to translate the Bible into Modern Greek, this was the first effort to result in a complete New Testament and in, as Vaporis remarks, "controversy which carried into the twentieth century." There had already been attempts to translate individual books into Modern Greek for non-Greeks. Cf. Vaporis 1977:232-233.

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

King James

Establishing relationships with the English ambassadors, Edward Barton and Sir Paul Pindar, he wrote a letter to the archbishop of Canterbury, George Abbot, in 1612 with a request to allow some of his clergymen to study in England. His request was approved by none other than James I. In this way, his relationships with England expanded (Davey 1985:7).

...

Codex Alexandrinus ... There are some, however, who hold that this Codex was presented to King James I. Cf. e.g., Scott Mandelbrote, "The Authority of the Word: Manuscripts, Print and the Text of the Bible in Seventeenth-Century England," in The Uses of Script and Print, 1300-1700, Julia Crick and Alexandra Walsham (eds.). Cambridge, UK: University Press, 2004:150; James A Patrick, 'Bibles,' in Renaissance and Reformation, vol. 1, James A Patrick (ed.). Tarrytown, NY: Marshall Cavendish, 2007:109.

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

This was fun for me, filling in a lot of dots.

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

Pic below is of the 1638:
http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions...e-levant-a-private-library-l08413/lot.18.html

H KAINH DIAQHKH... DIGLWTTOV, EN H ANTIPROSWPOV TOTE QEION PRWTOTUPON KAI H APARALLAKTWV EX EKEINOU EIV APLHN DIALEKTON, DIA TOU MAKARITOU KURIOU MAXIMOU TOU KALLIOUPOLITOU GENOMENH METAFRASIV AMA ETUPOQHSAN. [GENEVA: PIERRE AUBERT], 1638

Not sure which editions might actually be online

Steven Avery
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Council of Florence

From later in the same thread.

Checking the pre-Reformation history, the Council of Ferrara and Florence around 1440 discussed textual elements in Trinitarian controversies, with emphasis on Basil, Epiphanius and others. Also which side had more corruption in their texts :).

So far I do not see any direct references to the heavenly witnesses being referenced.

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

To add to some of my references about Cyril, Antoine Boucat has material here, again in Latin, bottom of the first column:

Theologia patrum dogmatica, scholastico-positiva, Volume 4 (c. 1726)
Andre Boucat
https://books.google.com/books?id=ZTZBAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA347
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?...061;q1="tres unum";page=root;orient=0;num=322

There is wonderful material to be sort out through many Latin writers.

Steven
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Patriarch Nikon of Moscow - triple Alleluia -: Simiaon Polatski’s

Patriarch Nikon of Moscow (1605-1681)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_Nikon_of_Moscow
"... seventh Patriarch of Moscow and all Rus' of the Russian Orthodox Church, serving officially from 1652 to 1666. He was renowned for his eloquence, energy, piety and close ties to Tsar Alexis of Russia. Nikon introduced many reforms which eventually led to a lasting schism known as Raskol in the Russian Orthodox Church."

Information on his Reform campaigns, p. 61-64, also to p. 70

Religion and the Early Modern State: Views from China, Russia, and the West (2004)
Robert O. Crummey
https://books.google.com/books?id=JwN6GIyyIgAC&pg=PA61

Sailing to Byzantium: Greek Texts and the Establishment of Authority in Early Modem Muscovy
David A. Frick
http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/huri/files/vxix_1995_pt1.pdf?m=1357532198

Simiaon Polatski enlisted the Trinitarian proof text found at 1 Jn. 5.7 (“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one”) in support of Nikon’s “restored” triple alleluia.106 At the other end of the Muscovite confessional spectrum, the Solovki monks complained of the omission of the same passage 107 in some of the new Nikonian texts. Neither side betrayed an awareness that the passage—the so-called comma johanneum—had become a cause célèbre thanks to Erasmus’ Greek-inspired criticism of the Vulgate. Nor do they seem to have been aware that it was, at least at first, Erasmus’ Greek philology that 108 had argued against the passage's authenticity.

107 Subbotin, Materialy 4:264.

108 Erasmus later reinstated the passage when a non-discredited Greek witness was found. On the Comma Johanneum and sixteenth-century biblical scholarship, see H. J. De Jonge, “Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum," Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses 56 (1980): 381-89; A.
Bludau, “Der Beginn der Controverse über die Ächtheit des Comma Johanneum (I Joh. 5, 7, 8.) im 16. Jahrhundert,” Der Katholik, 3rd ser. 26 (1902): 25-51; Jerry H. Bentley, Humanists and Holy Writ: New Testament Scholarship in the Renaissance (Princeton, 1983) 152-53. On the
Polish discussions, see Frick, Polish Sacred Philology, 99, 145-47, 230.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Serbian Orthodox writer - Nicholas (Velimirović) of Žiča (1880-1956)

Nicholas (Velimirović) of Žiča (1880-1956)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/pur...46512633900&reply_comment_id=2741218712636667

Here is a new to us heavenly witnesses writing from a Serbian Orthodox writer:

Nicholas (Velimirović) of Žiča (1880-1956)
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Nicholas_(Velimirović)_of_Žiča

HOMILY: About the mystery of the [Heavenly] Divine Trinity
https://www.cnyorthodoxchurch.org/files/Bulletin-2011.01.09.pdf
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
The Cyril Lucaris thread above:

Albert Hembd
Steven Avery Agreed. I myself have wondered about why the Greek Orthodox accepted these Reformation Bible corrections. I wonder sometimes if Cyrillis Lucaris has some influence in that. Lucaris was Patriarch of Constantinople in the early 1600s, and he studied in Geneva. He also sent candidates for the priesthood to study in Geneva.

Steven Avery
Edmund Calamy (1722) argued that Cyril would not have agreed for the verse to be in the Maximos (Maximus) Rodios of Gallipoli. translation unless it was in some Greek manuscripts.
http://books.google.com/books?id=WhwtAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA523

"Nor have we any reason to suppose, that either Maximus the Translator, or Cyrillus Lucaris, who was at that Time Patriarch of Confiantinople (who also prefix'd a Preface to it) would have inserted this Text, if it was not to have been found in any of their Greek MSS."

It would be nice to see if that Geneva 1638, or the London 1703 editions are online. Geneva is ancient and modern Greek in two columns, not sure about London.

Note that a major stash of his mss went down in a storm per Edward Pococke (wiki).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Lucaris

Another possibility:

Paschalis Kitromilides suggests that Maximus used Giovanni Diodati's modern Italian version of the New Testament as a model for his own translation (Kitromilides 2006:200).
http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext...

Cover Pic
http://www.sothebys.com/.../greece-and-the.../lot.18.html

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

Here is a bit about that Greek New Testament lineage:

Greek: Modern Bible History
http://gochristianhelps.com/iccm/greek/modgrekh.htm

1638 New Testament [Pierre] Aubert, Geneva
The first published Modern Greek N.T., printed with Ancient Greek.
The Modern Greek text, prepared by a Greek monk named Maximus,
was published at the expense of the Dutch States-General.

A revised text, edited by a defrocked priest named Seraphim, was published by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in 1703."--1000 Tongues [Info only: monk?]

"1710 New Testament Orphan House, Halle [Lutheran]
A revision of Maximus’ text, with corrections by Anastasius Michael,
edited by August H. Francke. It was often reprinted. The first edition by the BFBS published in 1810; by the Russian BS in 1817.
Numerous editions with slight revisions appeared, notably recensions by G. C. Renouard and Thomas Pell Platt, 1824; by D. Schinas, 1927; by H. D. Leeves, 1830."--1000 Tongues [Info only: 1927 probably should be 1827. Was NT being changed?]

1638
1710
1810
1817
1824
1827
1839

"This Greek New Testament was later made the basis for the Greek New Testament printed by the British and Foreign Bible Society. Cf. Rufus Anderson, Observations upon the Peloponnesus and Greek Islands, made in 1829. Boston: Crocker and Brewster, 1830:280. "

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

These two references could use a little translation:

Here is Prudent Maran (1746)
http://books.google.com/books?id=_MrSYQDpP4gC&pg=PA157

Here is the John Selden Latin reference (1653)
https://books.google.com/books?id=Gq5DAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA579

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

Then there was the vigorous defense of the verse in the 1700s by Greek Orthodox writers. Theophane Prokopowicz and - Feofan Prokopovic may have good material. Later, of course, you get the incredible contribution of Eugenius Bulgaris.

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

However, the 1643 Confession already strongly affirmed the heavenly witnesses:

The Orthodox Confession of the Eastern Church A.D. 1643.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.vi.i.html

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

The earlier 1629 Latin Confession of Cyril was light on scripture referencing on this site:
http://www.crivoice.org/creedcyril.html

However:

Cyril makes scriptural references at the end of each article in order to strengthen his position and argument (Maloney 1976:130)
http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext...

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

There could be hints in his correspondence east and west.

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

A bit about the 1638 ground-breaking (!) Bible edition:

The 'Calvinist Patriarch' Cyril Lucaris and his Bible translations*
Antony J Khokhar
Université catholique de Louvain Belgium
http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext...

New Testament in Modern Greek
.... The title of the text is ... "ΗΚαινήΔιαθήκητουΚυρίουημώνΙησούΧριστού: Δίγλωττος, Ενηαντιπροσώπωςτοτεθείονπρωτότυπονκαιηαπαραλλάκτωςεξεκείνουειςαπλήνδιάλεκτον, διάτουμακαρίτουκυρίουΜαξίμουτουΚαλλιουπολίτουγενομένημετάφρασιςάμαετυπώθησαν,""ΗΚαινήΔιαθήκητουΚυρίουημώνΙησούΧριστού: Δίγλωττος, Ενηαντιπροσώπωςτοτεθείονπρωτότυπονκαιηαπαραλλάκτωςεξεκείνουειςαπλήνδιάλεκτον, διάτουμακαρίτουκυρίουΜαξίμουτουΚαλλιουπολίτουγενομένημετάφρασιςάμαετυπώθησαν,"

A rough translation of the title would read thus: "The new covenant of Our Lord Jesus Christ: in two languages, one with the face towards the divine original and precisely similar to the other in a simple language, through the blessed lord Maximus Kallioupolitos a translation was made and simultaneously written down."

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

Interesting:

There are doubts about the authenticity of the Confession of Faith. Some hold that the Confession of Faith was the work of the Jesuits to malign Cyril. A Diomedes Kyriakos is one among such thinkers. M Gedeon and Chrysostom Papadopoulos suggest that it was the work of the Protestants in the name of Cyril Lucaris. A Diamantopoulos argues that it was in fact a malicious act of Léger. For further reference, see Hadjiantoniou 1961:102-103; Kitromilides 2006:197-198. The majority, however, supports the argument that the Confession of Faith is indeed the authentic work of Cyril, because he himself signed the Greek text at Geneva. This text has been preserved in the public library at Geneva. Cf., Toynbee 1954:157.

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

■ The New Testament in Modern Greek

The most important pastoral initiative undertaken by Cyril Lucaris, in the words of Paschalis Kitromilides, is the translation of the New Testament (Kitromilides 2006:200). Cyril wanted his flock to have access to the Sacred Scriptures in Modern Greek.11
...
Although this was not the first ever attempt to translate the Bible into Modern Greek, this was the first effort to result in a complete New Testament and in, as Vaporis remarks, "controversy which carried into the twentieth century." There had already been attempts to translate individual books into Modern Greek for non-Greeks. Cf. Vaporis 1977:232-233.

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

King James

Establishing relationships with the English ambassadors, Edward Barton and Sir Paul Pindar, he wrote a letter to the archbishop of Canterbury, George Abbot, in 1612 with a request to allow some of his clergymen to study in England. His request was approved by none other than James I. In this way, his relationships with England expanded (Davey 1985:7).

...

Codex Alexandrinus ... There are some, however, who hold that this Codex was presented to King James I. Cf. e.g., Scott Mandelbrote, "The Authority of the Word: Manuscripts, Print and the Text of the Bible in Seventeenth-Century England," in The Uses of Script and Print, 1300-1700, Julia Crick and Alexandra Walsham (eds.). Cambridge, UK: University Press, 2004:150; James A Patrick, 'Bibles,' in Renaissance and Reformation, vol. 1, James A Patrick (ed.). Tarrytown, NY: Marshall Cavendish, 2007:109.

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

This was fun for me, filling in a lot of dots.

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

Pic below is of the 1638:
http://www.sothebys.com/.../greece-and-the.../lot.18.html

H KAINH DIAQHKH... DIGLWTTOV, EN H ANTIPROSWPOV TOTE QEION PRWTOTUPON KAI H APARALLAKTWV EX EKEINOU EIV APLHN DIALEKTON, DIA TOU MAKARITOU KURIOU MAXIMOU TOU KALLIOUPOLITOU GENOMENH METAFRASIV AMA ETUPOQHSAN. [GENEVA: PIERRE AUBERT], 1638

Not sure which editions might actually be online

ADD TWO PICS ABOVE

The other fascinating question, that would take a Greek Orthodox historian is the post-Erasmus-Stephanus-Beza (the development of the pure Reformation Bible) writers in the Greek church.

To form one simple question: did any of the Greek writers actually oppose the heavenly witnesses either in commentary or as a text included in their printed Bibles in the 1600s and 1700s and early 1800s.

And how many, like Eugenius Bulgaris, are solid defenders! (Eugenius focused on the mangled grammar without the heavenly witnesses, and included early writer evidences.)

Before the humanistic, liberal scholarship elements of the later 1800s. Those elements caused some of the scholars to oppose the Antoniades edition excellent inclusion of the verse. (Think of the footnote commentaries, where there can be some scholarly kvetching about the inclusion.)

Steven

Checking the pre-Reformation history, the Council of Ferrara and Florence around 1440 discussed textual elements in Trinitarian controversies, with emphasis on Basil, Epiphanius and others. Also which side had more corruption in their texts :).

So far I do not see any direct references to the heavenly witnesses being referenced.

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

To add to some of my references about Cyril, Antoine Boucat has material here, again in Latin, bottom of the first column:

Theologia patrum dogmatica, scholastico-positiva, Volume 4 (c. 1726)
Andre Boucat
https://books.google.com/books?id=ZTZBAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA347
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt...
There is wonderful material to be sort out through many Latin writers.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Orthodox Wiki

Greek
http://el.orthodoxwiki.org/Ιωάννειο_κόμμα

https://translate.google.com/transl...A%CF%8C%CE%BC%CE%BC%CE%B1&prev=search&pto=aue

The Greek Book Titles will be added..

Comma johanneum
... " In tῷ ouranῷ, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three in eisi. καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ » [1] ,

which was added between verses 7 and 8 of the fifth chapter of the First Epistle of the Apostle John in the New Testament . [2]
Panagopoulos Ioannis, Introduction to the New Testament , Akritas, Athens 1994, p. 378.

This section, with a clear Trinitarian confession became very famous in the history of textual criticism of the New Testament because those were written for and against the authenticity of [3] .
Dimitropoulos Pan. "Ioannou Party", THE , vol. 7, published by Martinos Ath., Athens 1965, p. 760.

Research on this verse was carried out from the 16th [4]
Karavidopoulos D. John, Introduction to the New Testament , 2nd ed., Holly, Thessaloniki 1998, p. 448.

to the 19th-20th century [5]
See Marvin Richardson Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament , Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1957, 2: 366-367


and as a result it was widely accepted that the disputed words did not exist in the older Greek texts of the New Testament, but are a later addition. In the east, one of the first to quote and interpret it is
Efthymios Zigavinos (late 11th-early 12th century) [6] . ( Euthymius Zigabenus )
PG 130,872B.


Historical and critical research

Although many discussions took place about this village during the 16th c. [7] ,
Karavidopoulos D. John, Introduction to the New Testament , 2nd ed., Holly, Thessaloniki 1998, p. 448.

which culminated in the writing of remarkable works in the 19th [8] ,
See Marvin Richardson Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament , Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1957, 2: 366-367


today in general, the critique denies its authenticity for the following reasons: a) It is absent from all known ancient Greek manuscripts; b) it is also missing from many ancient Latin manuscripts and from all the ancient translations and c) all the Greek Fathers and writers are unaware of this until the 11th c. and the chiefs of the Latin Fathers and writers [9] .
Dimitropoulos, THE , ibid.

As previously claimed by the professor of the theological school of Thessaloniki, Panagiotis Dimitropoulos [10] ,
"Before me, the authenticity of the village was supported by P. Dimitropoulos" : Voulgaris Sp. Christos, Introduction to the New Testament , vol. B ', Athens 2005, p. 976

the absence of ancient manuscripts of the New Testament, at least from the 2nd century AD. and loss plethora of patristic writings, many of which are known only by their titles, does not allow the existence of undeniable certainty about the history of the extract and its existence or not in the original texts [11] .
Dimitropoulos Pan. "Ioannou Party", THE , vol. 7, published by Martinos Ath., Athens 1965, p. 760.

These elements, as well as the nature of the critique of the text, are such that they allow Professor Jeremiah Founta (who accepts the non-authenticity of the party ) to write that "the issue of authenticity or not the cut ... is still under investigation" and"It is not permissible, we think, for the interpreters, whether they are or are not, to be authentic in their positions, as to regard them as really true and indisputable, but to express them freely and with the possible formulation of their arguments, except after 'wariness' [12] .
Fountas Jeremias (Archim.), The Teaching of the Holy Bible about the Pre-Existence of Jesus Christ according to Saint Chrysostom , Athens 2002, p. 128, footnote. # 91.

On the contrary, Prof. Ioannis Karavidopoulos states: "This addition does not exist in any Greek manuscript and is not mentioned by the Greek fathers, despite the triadological disputes that would make it necessary to refer to such an important passage, if it really existed in the text. . the containing 4 ug later greek manuscripts (one of 12 th century., a 15 th and two of the 16 th century.) under influence of Latin, which had previously penetrated. in manuscripts Vulgata evidenced by 9 theai. and later, while even earlier he testified to Vetus Latina in Spanish manuscripts. The earliest mention of this addition is in the heretical Priscillian (+385) and perhaps already in Tertullian in North Africa. Thus a possible homeland of the addition is considered North Africa, from where it then spread to Spain and penetrated the Vulgata. [...] Today the authenticity of the addition is not accepted by any critic of the text " [13] .
Karavidopoulos D. John, Introduction to the New Testament , 2nd ed., Holly, Thessaloniki 1998, pp. 447-448.

The position of the "John party" in the Orthodox Church

The Orthodox Church, as the pre-eminent church of tradition [14],
Ware Kallistos (visitor of Diocletian), The Orthodox Church (translated by Roilidis I.), 4th ed., Akritas, Athens 2007, p. 289.

attaches great importance to what is called Holy Tradition and "is nothing but the experience of the Holy Bible by the Church in its long history" [15]
Karavidopoulos D. John, "The Interpretation of the New Testament in the Orthodox Church," pp. 11-30, in Bible Studies B (Biblical Library # 16), holly, Thessaloniki 2000, here pp. 12-13.

From this tradition are removed only those elements which "have lost their organic relation to the living body of Christ" [16]
Ibid., P. 13.


and consequently, the passage called "John's Party " was used ... because it testifies to the faith of the Church, We have accepted this section in its text and after the Church has accepted it, we must accept it as well " [17] .
Fountas Jeremias (Archim.), The Teaching of the Holy Bible about the Pre-Existence of Jesus Christ according to Saint Chrysostom , Athens 2002, p. 127.

Apart from the fact that the Orthodox Church reads this passage in the Divine Liturgy , through its liturgical books [18] ,
Liturgical book "Apostolos" , published by Fos H.E.EN., Athens: "On the Thursday of the Last Week, of the First Catholic Letter of John the Reading" . The "party of John" is on page 256

the "Party of John" used the same: saints of the Orthodox Church in their catechistic-dogmatic and interpretive works, such as Saint Nektarios of Aegina [19]
Orthodox Holy Catechism , 4th ed., Published by Vas. Rigopoulos, Thessaloniki 2001 (c1899), p. 91.

and Saint Nicodemus of Mount Athos [20] ,
Interpretation of the seven Catholic epistles of the holy and glorious apostles James, Peter, John and Judas , published by Orthodoxi Kypseli, Thessaloniki 1986, p. 614. In fact, he points out that in his time, the "Party of John" is found in almost all printed books containing the universal letters (p. 615).

important performers such as Efthyios Zigavinos (11th century) [21]
In the village PG 130,872B.

and eminent theologians such as the Patriarch of Constantinople Gennadios Scholarios (15th century) [22].
και επιφανείς θεολόγοι όπως ο Πατριάρχης Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Γεννάδιος Σχολάριος (15ος αιώνας)[22].
Summary of it against Nationals , in verse 4.15
Επιτομή του κατά Εθνικών, στο εδάφιο 4,15.

In addition, it was used in Doctrinal and Symbolic texts of the Orthodox Church such as the Confession of Faith by Mitrophanos Kritopoulou (1625) [23] ,
Karmiris John 's doctrinal and symbolic monuments of the Orthodox Catholic Church , Vol. B ', Athens 1953, pp. 489-561. On page 511 the "party".

which "systematically identifies and systematically orthodox doctrines" [24]
In the same, p. 493.

and the Orthodox Confession of Peter Mogi (16) 42 [25]
Karmiris, ibid, pp. 582-686. On page 596 the "party"

wherein "exetithento positively and clearly doctrines Orthodox Church" [26] .
Ibid, p. 583.

It has also been used in older works of Orthodox Dogmatics, such as the rector of the church. of the Academy of Kiev, Archimandrite Anthony ( Dogmatic theology of the Orthodox Catholic and Eastern Church , in Athens 1858, p. 116), a "remarkable work"which "marked most publications" [27] ,
Trembelas N. Pan., Dogmatics of the Orthodox Catholic Church , vol. A ', 3rd ed., The Savior, Athens 1997, p. 57.

while even today, professors such as Ioannis Panagopoulos [28]
Panagopoulos Ioannis, Introduction to the New Testament , Akritas, Athens 1994, p. 383.

and Christos Voulgaris [29] ,
Voulgaris Sp. Christos, Introduction to the New Testament , vol. B ', Athens 2005, p. 970.

in their Introductions , normally use the "comma" in the analyzes of the content of A 'Ioannou . The above is a fact that testifies that, although "1 John 5: 7-8 ... does not seem to come, in its present form, from the cane of the holy author" , nevertheless "the Church itself. ..corrupted in her Bible, the only so clearly triadological passages, since they expressed her faith. " [30] .
Papadopoulos G. Stylianos, Theology and Language , Akritas, 3rd improved edition, Athens 2002, pp. 105-106


Consequently, a church with a history of centuries and such a perception of the value of sacred texts, could not alternate its text according to the respective interpretations of scholars who often change over a period of several years. The Orthodox Church does not use critical texts but liturgical texts. For the Orthodox this is of particular importance as the so-called critical text of the New Testament is a product of scientific synthesis, which has never been used in Worship by any Confession [31].
Despot, The Code ... , ibid., P. 33

But apart from that, the problem has other parameters: the 26th version of Nestle-Aland differs from the 25th in about 700 areas. In this way, despite the enormous effort of a large number of scholars, no consensus has been reached since then, for a better and more authoritative text [32] .
In the original:"It is questionable, because from the beginning of the 16th century until today critical editions of the Greek text of the New Testament have been ignored and despised by the Ecclesiastical text, during the elaboration of the various editions (!) With the result that their text is presented" and “subjective.” The truth of the speech is also proved by the fact that, while researched, some consider the writing of a specific passage as original, while others consider its writing as a result, as a result of which there are differences between them, and often differences. between successive editions of the same publisher, such as the 26th edition of Nestle-Aland differs from the 25th in about 700 countries, so despite the enormous efforts of a large number of researchers, no consensus has yet been reached between them.as to the best and most valid text ": Voulgaris Sp. Christos, Introduction to the New Testament , vol. B ', Athens 2005, p. 1403.


These hundreds of differences are something "that demonstrates the existence of subjectivity" [33] .
Despot, The Code ... , ibid ..

But even if the evidence of science so far shows that the John Party was not part of the original, although for some scholars, hints of the party exist in the West from the 2nd and 3rd century AD, in Tertullian (PL 2, 211C ) and Kyprianos (De unitate Ecclesiae VI, PL 4, 519B) respectively [34] ,
Despot S. Sotirios, The Code of the Gospels , Athos, Athens 2007, pp. 330-331, footnote. # 22) / Sotiropoulos Nikolaos, Jesus Yahweh , 2nd ed., Published by 'The Cross', Athens 1988, p. 33 / Dimitropoulos, "Ioannou Party", THE , ibid., P. 761.

however, this contains "theology" that is "true" [35]
In the original: "Is the Johannine Comma Scripture? The evidence seems to say no. Is the Johannine Comma truthful? Is it sound theology? Yes." (Daniel L. Akin, The New American Commentary , vol. 38, 1, 2, 3 John, Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers 2001, p. 199).

(for those who of course believe in the Holy Trinity ): even if it is not testified from any ancient manuscript, this verse "clearly testifies to the faith of the Church in the triune ama and oneness of god", an idea that according to the Orthodox interpretation is inherent in many parts of the New Testament [36] .
Sotiropoulos Nikolaos, Jesus Yahweh , 2nd ed., 'The Cross', Athens 1988, pp. 33-34.
He has pro material that is hopefully awaiting translation.

Thus, in the use during the ecclesiastical worship, the text of K.D. which has been read for centuries in the Eucharist. Consequently, "the Nestle-Aland critical text is used in university teaching (theological schools) and in scientific works, while the Ecclesiastical (also called Byzantine) text is the liturgical text that is recited in the Church and spread to the people by the Christian movements. of the country and from the pastoral work of the parish churches " [37] .
Karavidopoulos D. John, "Modern Greek translations of the New Testament in the last quarter of the 20th century", pp. 104-122, in Bible Studies B (Biblical Library # 16), holly, Thessaloniki 2000, here pp. 115.

In the text of the New Testament of the Patriarchate of Constantinople of 1904 , which is the official text of K.D. used by the Orthodox Church , John 's Party is printed, albeit in italics and in lower case letters. And while in the preface of the edition, "this passage" is declared "as a complete martyr" , the Holy Synod, of course, imposed its citation [38] ,
Karavidopoulos D. John Bible Studies C (Bible Library # 28), yew, Thessaloniki, 2004, p. 324: "This village it, nd notes by only Taq bases of this issue, but neither exceptionally They seem to have entered, as a complete martyr, from the ecclesiastical texts, from the fathers and teachers of the Eastern Church, from the ancient translations, from the oldest inscriptions of the Slavic translation, and that of the Latin one, and of all the well-known independent Greek manuscripts, of the addition introduced in Vulgatan, which is slightly introduced. It is divided according to the opinion of the Holy Synod " .

as it considered it necessary [39] .
Panagopoulos Ioannis, Introduction to the New Testament , Akritas, Athens 1994, p. 379.

Also, some publications that are essentially based on the so-called Patriarchal text, have incorporated — either in brackets or using a different type of letters — and interpreted John's party. [40] .
See The New Testament: Text and Interpretive Performance by I. T. Kolitsara, The New Testament after a Short Interpretation by P. N. Trembelas and The Bible, Translation from the Original Texts .

For the same reason, eminent scholars such as the professors of interpretation of K.D., of the universities of Athens and Thessaloniki, Petros Vassiliadis, Ioannis Galanis, Georgios Galitis and Ioannis Karavidopoulos, preserved the Ioannio Party in their translation of the New Greek [ 41] .
This is the translation: "The New Testament. The original text with modern Greek translation in the primary school " , published by Biblical Society, 2nd edition 1989 revised (c1985). Their translation was based on the Ecclesiastical Text during the Patriarchal edition of 1904.

It is noteworthy that in the work there is no certainty about interference or falsification, but it is mentioned in a footnote (p. 387) that this part of the text "does not exist in the main manuscripts" . The same was done by Professor Athanasios Delikostopoulos in his translation [42]
The New Testament in Modern Greek Version , 7th ed., Athens 2003.

where he kept the Ioannio Party without comments (pp. 625-626) [43] .
In fact, Academician Markos A. Siotis and Emeritus Professor of the University of Athens considers the work of Mr. Delikostopoulou as "the most faithful to the original text ... among others in use and today" (ibid., P. 31) .

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

  • The important thing about Cyril Lucensis, patriarch of Constantinople, was that he was supportive of the Reformation concerning the bible. He was very learned and fluent in a number of languages and even sought after good manuscripts of the bible.
  • Of course that could not last long in Constantinople, so he was defrocked, removed from his position, and murdered.
  • The part that really matters is that during the last half of the 17th century, the Greek Orthodox Constantinople church, condemned him and his efforts, and the Reformation, and any Reformation bible doctrines or teachings...
  • Then they went on to re-establish and re-affirm the Greek Orthodox doctrines.
  • The 1710 edition of Euthymius' Panoplia, was sponsored and printed by this re-established Greek Orthodox Church.
  • So, how is it that I John 5:7,8 in Greek is in the 1710 edition?
  • That is what is important about Cyril Lucensis time as Patriarch of Constantinople.
  • The Liberals cannot say "Oh, they were influenced by the Reformation, etc."
  • When in reality, they completely were convinced that the Reformation was simply an old Heresy (that Euthymius dealt with in the Panoplia).
  • And printing of the Panoplia, an authentic Greek Orthodox approved and sponsored and collated from Greek Orthodox manuscripts, scholars, out of the realm of Europe and the Reformation powers...
  • That this edition of the Panoplia (1710) would be the gift and cure all for Christians everywhere from the evils and heresy of the Reformation teachings.
  • Again, how did I John 5:7,8 get into the Greek text of Euthymius' Panoplia when the Greek Orthodox had such opinions and took such great care in collating an edition in 1710 ??
  • That is the real key to this whole subject.
 
Last edited:
Top