icthus on baptistboard

Steven Avery

Administrator
Question about textual difference

Icthus
That there is a grammatical problem with the passage, with the missing words, is all too evident to those who know Greek grammar. But, admitting to it is completely another thing. This problem which was known back in the days of Gregory of Nazianzus (390 AD), is also known today. But, how many textual scholars who are aware of this, would even bring it up, since they consider the disputed words themselves to be not the work of the apostle John. Gregory wrote:

". . . (he has not been consistent) in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourselves disclaim in the case of Deity?" (Theological Orientations, Fifth Orientation the Holy Spirit)

Gregory noticed the problem with the grammar, but yet we do not find him actually quote the words in his writings.The Greek grammarian, Dr A T Robertson, who should have picked this up, does not even mention it in his Word Pictures of the New Testament. Thats because his mind was already made up about the genuineness of the words. Likewise Bishop Thomas Middleton (1769-1822), noted in his excellent work on the Greek Article: "The Doctrine of the Greek Article applied to the Criticism and Illustration of the New Testament, that the presence of the Greek article "to" in the sentence "kai hoi treis eis to hen eisin", would call for the disputed words to be part of the text. This is because, the use of the article "to" here with "hen" (one), would be for the purpose of "renewed mention", when a word in the Greek (in this case "one") was mentioned earlier. However, apart from verse seven, where we see "hen" used, it is not found in this chapter at all. Even though Dr Middleton saw this, he yet did not accept that the disputed words were part of the epistle.

Make what you will of the evidence.

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

Hi, It is true that the oldest Greek manuscript that is in existence today thatb has the disputed words, dates from around the 15th or 16th century, too late to be used, in my opinion to establish the genuineness of the words.

However, in the field of Textual Criticism, the manuscripts are only one of the sources to establishing a reading. We must also consider the evidence of the early Church fathers who quoted from the versions that were available to them, and to the versions of other languages, like the Old Latin, which is from around the 2nd century. It is a puzzle that the only evidence that we do have for these words, is from the Latin. We have a very clear reference to these actual words in the writings of Cyprian, Bishop of Cartidge, in North Africa, around 240 A.D, which predates the oldest Greek manuscript for this epistle, which is about 100 years later. the evidence of Cyprian has been disputed, espacially since he was from the Latin Church, where it has been said that he did not have access to any Greek New Testaments, and that he knew no Greek himself. Both these assumptions are wrong. Cyprian had a Greek education, and his writings show that he did use the Greek NT. He actually translated an Epistle from a Bishop to himself that was written in Greek, into Latin. The reading of 1 John 5:7 was also known to the heretic Priscillian (4th century), who altered it to suit his Christlogy. There is also a "Prologue" to the "Catholic Epistles", which, I am convinced was the work of Jerome, which I have also seen in the Latin text, where he complains of unfaithful translator's leaving out these words from verses 7 and 8.

As for the manuscript evidence. I shall give one good example for their relialability. The famous passage in John's Goepel of the Woman found in adultery (7:53-8:11), is attested to by the oldest Greek manuscript, the Codex Bezae, a Greek and Latin Mss of the 5th or 6th century. However, Jerome, who lived about 100 years before this Mss, said of this passage in John, that it was found "in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin" (C.Pelag.ii.17). What became of these "many manuscripts"? Augustine says that "enemies of the faith removed the passage". I have shown elsewhere, that many of the Greek and other language manuscripts were copied by the heretics, many of those baing Arians, who denied the Deity of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, and also the Holy Trinity. We also know that the Gothic version of the NT, was corrupted, for example in Philippians 2:6, where, instead of reading "ibna guda" (being in very nature God), it reads: "galeiko guda" (similar to God). This is because the version was made by Ulfilas, who was an Arian, and who denied that Jesus was God. Likewise the Greek gramnmarian, Dr G B Winer, when commenting on Titus 2:13, "our Great God and Saviour Jesus Christ", admits that grammartcally the sentence in the Greek refers to one Person, Jesus Christ. But then says, that "theologically" he could not allow for this, because he was a Unitarian.

You see, when it comes to the making of a version, or the copying of a manuscript, if the persons doing the work have their own predisposed theology about Jesus Christ, that is clearly heretical, then the outcome of the work is very doubtful. I fill conclude with just one more example, if I may. For the reading of 1 Timothy 3:16 "God was manifested in the flesh...", (which has the evidence of manuscripts, ancient versions, and Greek Church fathers), was changed to "He who", because the reading "God" was strongly objected to by Dr Vance Smith, who was on the Committee of the Revised Version (1881-1885). Dr Vance Smith, you will be interested to know, was a Unitarian! The list goes on...

Icthus
Craig, when I did my study into the Greek grammar of this passage some 10 years ago, I consulted Robertson, Blass, Winer, Green, Moulton, Moule, Dana & Mantey, Davis, etc, but never came across any of them who dealt with the problem with the Greek grammar here in 1 John 5:6-9.

On the side of those defending the passage from the Greek grammar, three of the best I found by scholars of Greek, were Mr F. Nolan, Inquiry, pp.260,304; in the Classical Journal, Vol.II, pp.869-871; and on the use of the Greek article in verse eight (TO hen), Bishop T F Middleton, on the Greek Article, pp.633-653. Dr Middleton, who himself regarded the words as not part of the original based on the manuscript evidence, nevertheless said that the Greek grammar of verse eight, where the article is used with "hen"(one), shows that "one" was used previously in the context. And, according to the grammar, either both verse 7 and 8 stayed, or went.

In verse six, where the Holy Spirit is said to be the "wintness", why is the neuter "to martoroun" (that bears witness) used? Why did John not use the masculine here as he does in verse seven, where he also speaks of the Holy Spirit? Was not the "Person" of the Holy Spirit mentioned in verse six? Do you see the problem?
Dr Wallace is quite wrong in his assumption that John here is "Personfying" the "Spirit, water and the blood", and therefore uses the masculine gender. In what sense does John do this? Why did he simply not use the actual personal nouns to say what he wanted to? Where else in Scripture do we have this method used? Again I ask, if the Holy Spirit as a "witness" is referred to in the neuter gender, why the need to change to the masculine in verse seven?

You say that John 1:1, "is “shot full of holes” too because it does not agree with the standard rules of grammar.". can you show me how?

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

Daniel Wallace might have a Ph.d, but here he is wrong. This is my own satdy on Cyprian:

"The Evidence of Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage on the “Comma Johanneum” (A.D. 200-258)

For those who are not familiar with the above heading, the “Comma Johanneum” refers to the disputed words found in the King James Version at 1 John chapter 5, verse 7. The text reads as follows:

“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one”

Primarily Investigation on some Background Information

It has been held by many scholars, many of whom are among the best in Textual Criticism, that the above reading as found in the King James Version (KJV), should not form part of the First Epistle of John, as they are not in the original as produced by the Apostle.

These words, they say, can only be traced in the Greek, to the 15th or 16th century, and found in Greek manuscripts of no real worth. The late date of these words in the Greek manuscript evidence, I will concur to. But, we must remember that we do not have all the Greek manuscripts that were copied during the centuries, and more importantly, we do not have the original manuscripts for any of the books of the New Testament! The oldest Greek manuscript that has come down to us with this passage, the Codex Sinaiticus, which dates from the 4th century.

It should be noted here, the attitude of some of the Textual Critics on this passage, where the wording of these scholars can be summed up by Dr Bruce Metzger:

“The Comma probably originated as a piece of allegorical exegesis of the three witnesses and may have been written as a marginal gloss in a Latin manuscript of 1 John, whence it was take into the text of the Old Latin Bible during the fifty century” (B M Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, p. 102. 1973 reprint)

Like all the evidence that is out there against the reading of this passage as found in the KJV, the arguments are based purely on probability, and conjecture, but never are there any solid facts produced! What I am going to show in this study, is the plain fact, that this passage was indeed know to, and quoted by, St Cyprian, who lived at least 100 years before the Codex Sinaiticus. And, though the text in question is in Latin (since Cyprian belonged to the Church which had Latin as its main language), yet, as I shall demonstrate, was also part of the Greek New Testament that this Church father used.

I owe it to the reader, to spend a little time here with regards to the lack of this reading in the ancient Greek manuscripts. I shall also touch upon the ancient versions of this Epistle.

We have already mentioned the fact, that the earliest Greek manuscript for 1 John, the Codex Sinaiticus, does not contain this verse as in the KJV. Nor do the other three or four principal Greek manuscripts, which date in the fourth and fifth centuries, have this reading. But, does this cause a problem with the evidence for this reading then? I think not!

I should point out here, that the two principal Greek manuscripts, the Codex Sinaiticus, and the Codex Vaticanus, which also dates from the middle of the fourth century. It is my opinion, for good reason, that far too much weight is placed upon these two manuscripts, as witnesses for the text of the Greek New Testament. There are certain facts from history, which I shall present here, that should be conclusive on the credibility of these two manuscripts.

The earliest Greek manuscripts, known as Papyrus manuscripts (as they were written using the papyrus plant), were written in “rolls” (libri) of Papyrus. We know from the evidence of Eusebius, the Church historian, that in about the year A.D. 331, the Emperor Constantine, ordered that fifty manuscripts of the Greek New Testament be made on “vellum”, in “Codex” format, for his new capital. (See, Frederic Kenyon; Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, p.41). We then have the words of Bruce Metzger, who writes,

“The suggestion has been made by several scholars that the two oldest parchment manuscripts of the Bible which are in existence today, namely codex Vaticanus and codex Sinaiticus, may have been among those ordered by Constantine. It has been pointed out that Eusebius’ curious expression, ‘volumes of threefold and fourfold forms’, agrees with the circumstances that these two codices have respectively three columns and four columns on each page” (Metzger, ibid, p. 7)

We further know from St Jerome (4th century), “that the (papyrus) volumes in the library of Pamphilus at Caesarea were replaced by copies on vellum through the efforts of Acacius and Euzoius (circ. 350)” (Kenyon, ibid). The year for this work of copying from payyrus to vellum by these two men, are the time most scholars give for the codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Of Acacius, we are told, that “he became the head of the courtly Arian party” (H Wace, and W Piercy, A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature, p.2; one volume edition). And of Euzoius, “Arian bishop of Antioch, the companion and intimate friend of Arius form an early age” (ibid, p.358). Arius, for the record, was the forerunner of the Jehovah’s Witnesses! Among other blasphemies, denied the Holy Trinity, Deity of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit! Can we trust any “copies” of the Scriptures made by these men? You, the reader must judge.

About the time these two codices were being “copied”, the Gothic Version of the Holy Bible was being made. This was the work of a “missionary” to the Goths, Ulfilas (died about 380). Like Acacius and Euzoius, Ulifilas was also an Arian, and his Arianism is clearly seen by his “translation of ‘isa theoi’, in Phil. 2:6, where he has rendered the Greek by: ‘ galeiko guda’ (= ‘similar to God’), whereas it should have been rendered, ‘ibna guda’ (“equal to God” - my translation) “ (Bruce Metzger; The Early Versions of the New Testament, p. 377). The point I am making with this example, is to show that ones “theological bias” does indeed have a bearing on how something one writes or speaks. There are many more examples that I can produce, but I think that I have said enough here.

I must bring to the readers attention an important case on textual criticism, which will shed more light on the evidence of the Greek manuscripts.
I refer to the famous passage in the Gospel of St. John, of the woman who is caught in adultery. The oldest Greek Manuscript that contains this passage, is the Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis, which is of the 5th century. All the Greek papyri and Codex manuscripts before this time that have come down to us, omit this passage, or mark it as doubtful. What, then are we to make of the words of Jerome, the author of the Latin Vulgate, who died in A.D. 420? Jerome, in his work, Contra Pelagium, says that the passage of the woman taken in adultery, is found in “many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin” (ii, 17). Many Greek Manuscripts? Where, then are these manuscripts? Augustine, who lived at the same time of Jerome, complains that people of little faith removed the passage! Then, how come the earliest Greek Manuscript that we have containing the passage, dates from the fifth century? It is clear, that from a very early time, the passage was removed from John’s Gospel! The first Greek father to refer to this passage as part of John’s Gospel, was Euthymius, who was from the 12th century! Is not at all more than probable, that our text from 1 John would have also have been removed at a very early time?
The Passage from Cyprian which shows he read 1 John 5:7

“Dicit Dominus, ego et Pater unum sumus, et iterum de Patre, et Filio et Spiritu Sancto, scriptum est, et tres unum sunt” (De Unitate Ecclesiae, Op.p.109)

“The Lord said, I and the Father are one, and again of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, it is written: and these three are one”

The first quotation is from John 10:30, where our Lord is speaking of the essential unity of Himself and the Father. “I and the Father”, two Persons, which is further shown by the use of the masculine, plural “sumus” (lit. “We are”. It is then followed by the neuter “hen” (lit “one thing”; not the masculine “heis “ ”one person”).

Cyprian then goes on to say, “et iterum...scriptum est”, that is, “and again...it is written”. It must be mentioned here, that whenever Cyprian was referring to, or quoting from a Scripture passage. Where else, besides 1 John 5:7 in the entire Bible do words even similar to these appear?
Now, how can anyone get around these plain words of Cyprian, where he no doubt quotes from 1 John 5:7? We do have a few work a rounds for this passage. Some say that the words are a “gloss”, that it, they were originally written in the margin of a New Testament, and then eventually some zealous Trinitarian scribe decided to include the words into the main text of John’s first Epistle. This is nothing but conjecture, as not a single copy of Greek manuscript, or ancient version in any language has been found where these words are written anywhere but the text itself! Then, we have those who suppose, like Facundus (Pro. Defens, iii.1,3), the Bishop of Hermiane (6th century), that Cyprian had before him the reference to “the Spirit, the water and the blood” in verse eight, and supposed that John was speaking of the Holy Trinity! Plausable, but not probable. There is indeed a passage in Cyprian’s writings, where he does mention a reference that “symbolises” the Trinity in a passage dealing with the three men in Daniel, who spent the third, sixth and ninth hour in prayer. So the passage runs;

“We find that the three children with Daniel, strong in faith and victorious in captivity, observed the third, sixth, and ninth hour, as it were, for a sacrament of the Trinity, which in the last times had to be manifested. For both the first hour in its progress to the third shows for the consummated number of the Trinity, and also the fourth proceeding to the sixth declares another Trinity; and when from the seventh the ninth is completed, the perfect Trinity is numbered every three hours (Dom. Orat. 34)”
However, it is one thing to comment upon a passage, but another to use the formula “it is written”, which Cyprian ONLY uses for an actual Scripture passage, and then to refer to something completely different! He is not commenting on 1 John 5:8, where, if he were, then, like he does in the above passage, would mention the words of verse eight, and then say that he sees a reference to the Holy Trinity in them. This would be acceptable. Dr John Ebrard, who rejects the words in 1 John 5:7 as being an “interpolation”, has this to say on the theory proposed by Facundus.

“Facundus, indeed (pro Defens 111.1,3), supposed that Cyprian had here in view only the words to pneuma kai to hudôr kai to haima hoi treis eis to hen eisin; having understood by pneuma the energy of the Holy Spirit in the Church, by the hudor the energy of the Father, and by the haima that of the Son. But, although it might be possible that Cyprian so understood the words ( and though, further, the Vulgate has translated eis to hen eisin by unum sunt), yet between possibility and probability there is a difference, and Cyprian’s words may be explained by the fact that in manuscripts which he had (of an old Latin version) the interpolation was already to be found. Thus was Cyprian’s sentence viewed by Fulgentius Ruspensis (Responsio ad Arianos); and, what is more important, Fulgentius himself quotes the critically-questionable words as St John’s, and therefore must have read them in his New Testament. (Fulgentius died A.D. 533)” (Biblical Commentary on the Epistles of St John, pp-325-326)

There can be no question that the words were known to Cyprian, and even did form part of His New Testament.. We shall now look at the testimony of Tertullain (160-220), who was also from Carthage in North Africa, where Cyprian had been Bishop, who used to refer to Tertullian as “his master”. The importance of Tertullian’s testimony here, especially in connection with Cyprian, will become clearer as we proceed.

Tertullian, in his work “Against Praxeas”, (who taught a Trinity where the Father actually suffered on the cross, where He identified the Father with the Son, and therefore failed to separate the Persons in the Godhead.) has a passage which says;

“And so the connection of the Father, and the Son, and of the Paraclete makes three cohering Persons, one in the other, which three are one (qui tres unum sunt) [in substance ‘unum’, not ‘one’ in number, ‘unus’]; in the same manner which it was said, ‘I and the Father are one’, to denote the unity of substance, not the singularity of number” (Ad Prax. C.25).
Some observations need to be made here. Firstly, it is interesting that, like Cyprian, Tertullian also uses John 10:30 with 1 John 5:7. Secondly, where, if not from 1 John 5:7, does Tertullian get the phrase, “qui tres unum sunt”? Thirdly, what does Tertullian mean with the phrase, “quomodo dictum est” (in the same manner which it was said)? And then quote from John 10:30? Fourthly, though, like Cyprian, Tertullian was of the Latin Church, yet we know that he “wrote particularly in Latin, but also in Greek. He also sometimes used a Latin Bible, sometimes a Greek, probably oftener the former than the latter. It is improbable that his Greek Bible was very different in text from the Greek text underlying his Latin Bible” (A Souter; The Text and canon of the New Testament, p.79). Frederic Kenyon adds, that Tertullian “seems often to have made his own translations from the Greek” (The Text of the Greek Bible, p.136).

This leads us to the conclusion on this, that there can be no doubt that the Greek Bible was available, and used in North Africa as early as middle of the second century, even though the Church in North Africa spoke mainly Latin. It is complete nonsense to assume with Dr Thomas Horne, who quotes Michaelis, the German theologian, who said;

“On the other hand, admitting that the words Et tres unum sunt – And these three are one – were so quoted from the verse in question, Michaelis asks whether a passage found in no ancient Greek manuscript, quoted by no Greek father, and contained in no other ancient version but the Latin, is therefore to be pronounced genuine, merely because one single Latin father of the first three centuries, who was bishop of Carthage, where the Latin version only was used, and where Greek was unknown, has quoted it?” (An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, vol.IV, p.461)

The reference here is to Cyprian, who, it is wrongly assumed, had no knowledge of Greek, and therefore only used the Latin Bible. Such arguments in Textual Criticism clearly show that complete lack of knowledge of the facts, or the misuse of them to prove a point. This is not new, as most of those who reject this passage in 1 John, have done so mainly on the basis of other big names before them, and not because they have cared to examine the evidence for themselves. Cyprian, we are told, received “a good Greek education” (Elgin S Moyer; The Wycliffe Biographical Dictionary of the Church, p.108). Can anyone be said to have received a good Greek education, without learning Greek? Further evidence of Cyprian’s knowledge of Greek can be found in his correspondence with Bishop Firmilian. “Before the winter of 256* Cyprian’s messengers to Firmilian returned with (10) his reply, the most enthusiastic letter of the series. We have it in Cyprian’s translation from the Greek” (H Wace and W Piercy, ibid, pp.228-229). Again I must ask, is it possible to translate from Greek, if one has know knowledge of the language? There can be no doubt to the honest mind, that the facts speak for themselves, and the evidence, not conjecture, is, that Cyprian, like Tertullian, fully knew the Greek language, would no doubt have had the entire Bible in Greek as well as Latin! Can anyone still doubt that, not only was the disputed passage know to both Tertullian and Cyprian, but that it would have been in both the Greek as well as the Latin Epistle of John! To argue that Cyprian did not know Greek, is, in my opinion, like arguing to the wind!

The Evidence of a Single Latin Father Should not be Considered!

I refer the reader back to the passage from Dr Horne as quoted above, where he mentions the objections of Michaelis. This argument now leads us to the evidence of the passage as quoted by one Church father, namely Cyprian, which is objected to because he belonged to the Latin Church, as was a sole witness to the disputed words. I don’t think that Dr Michaelis, by saying this, is actually admitting that Cyprian read the words, but that even if he did, his testimony does not amount to much, as it is only his testimony, against the bulk of witnesses that are against this passage.

I would like to refer the reader to Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians, chapter two, and verse two. Here the King James Version reads: “…to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ”. Now, a textual study of this text from the external evidence that we have, reveals no less than fifteen readings for this! The reading found in most modern versions, is, “…to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God Christ” (lit. “tou Theou Christou”), which has been accepted as the “original” for this text. It should be noted, that all the Critical Greek New Testaments (Greisbach, Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Alford), accepted this reading, not because it is read in the only Greek Manuscript, the Codex Vatanicus, but, because it was known to the Church father, Hilary. For those who are not familiar with the Church fathers, Hilary was Bishop of Poitiers in the fourth century (315-368), and, like Cyprian, was of the Latin Church! This is not the oldest reading. Clement of Alexandria, who lived almost 200 years before Hilary, and who was of the Greek Church, here reads: “tou theou tou en Christoi” (of God in Christ). This reading also has the support of the so-called “Queen of the Cursives” (manuscripts written in running hand, as opposed to those written in contracted, capital letters), which goes by the number 33. It dates from about the 9th century, but this late date does not detract from its importance as a credible witness to the early text. Granted that the Papyri Greek Manuscript, the P46 also supports the reading of Hilary, and is of the early part of the third century. But, this Mss. Was not available to any of the above Textual Critics when they complied their Critical Versions of the Greek New Testament, so this did not contribute to their decision on textual matters. I am not altogether clear as to how the evidence is weighed when determining which is the correct reading for a passage. My own investigations cause me some serious concerns, when I see the evidence for important passages are not correctly used, or ignored altogether. Let us keep with the same Papyri Mss. (P46). Besides the reading it has for Colossians 2:2, which supports the testimony of Hilary and the Codex Vatanicus, this Mss. has in an important verse for the Deity of Jesus Christ, support for which I believe to be the original reading, as found in the KJV. The passage I refer to is 1 Corinthians 10:9, where the reading “Christ” has been replaced by either “Lord” or “God”, mainly the former. But, you may say, there can’t be any problem with this, as it must refer to Jesus. Not so! Paul here is referring to the passage in Numbers chapter 21, verses 5-6, where the LORD (YHWH) is said to have sent the serpents among the children of Israel. With the reading “Christ” there is no doubt that only Jesus can be meant. But, with either of the other readings, it is more likely that the Father is meant. On the textual evidence, beside the evidence of P46, the support for the reading “Christ” is very strong, both for its diversity, and its age. For the former, it is supported by a host of Greek Manuscripts, and Greek Church fathers. Add to this the following Ancient Versions: Old Latin, Latin Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic, Georgian, and Salvonic, which is the greater majority of the Versions. Then we also have the evidence from the Latin fathers, and also the heretic, Marcion! For the latter it can be said, that this reading dates from as early as 100 A.D., which would be the date for the manuscripts for the basis of the Old Latin Version. The heretic Marcion lived around 140 A.D, where his copy of this Epistle would no doubt date earlier than this. It might be said here, that the evidence for either of the other readings is no comparison! Yet, in spite
of all this very strong evidence, The Greek New Testament issued by the United Bible Societies (4th Edition. 1994), give the reading “Christ” a “B” mark. This mark “indicates that the text is almost certain” (p.3*). The “A” mark “indicates that the text is certain”. By giving this reading the “B” mark, the Committee shows that there is some doubt to the reading adopted! However, there is no doubt in my mind, that if the evidence is viewed honestly, then the reading “Christ” is the only one possible. It is evident that the enemy made sure that this reference to Christ’s Deity did not stand, as he did for other great texts like 1 Timothy 3:16, and like he has also succeeded in 1 John 5:7, if the so-called expert scholars can be relied upon!

I shall end by quoting the words of Dr Frederick Scrivener, who , though he did not accept the text of 1 John 5:7 as being that of the Apostle, had this to say of the evidence of Cyprian. “It is surely safer and more candid to admit that Cyprian read ver. 7 in his copies, than to resort to the explanation of Facundus [vi], that the holy Bishop was merely putting on ver.8 a spiritual meaning” (A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, vol. II, p.405)"

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

contra
It is also a fact that Ambrose (who died in 397 A.D.) quoted 1 John 5:7-8 four times, and in none of those quotes did he include the Comma. ??

There was a Scrivener Cyprian back and forth.
==============================

icthus

Bluefalcon:, you just cannot dismiss the testimony of Cyprian, as though he is all alone to know of this verse. The free quote from Tertullian has very similar language to that of Cyprian, and actually even connects 1 John 5:7 with John 10:30, exactly what Cyprian does. We must not forget that this reading (as per KJV) was also known to Priscillian, about 400 Bishops, Jerome.
Did you know that the reading "mystery of God, namely Christ" (musteriou tou theou christou), does not have the support of a single Greek Church father? The ONLY father who know of this reading, is Hilary (4th century), who, like Cyprian was also Latin! Up to about the 1930's, only ONE Greek Mss had it (4th century), since then only another ONE has joined, the Papyri # 46 (3rd century). If you were to look at the Textual Criticism for this text, you will see that the testimony of Hilary played an important role in its being accepted.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Early support for 1 John 5:7? - 2005
(some of this might duplicate the info in the previous post)

The Evidence of Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage on the “Comma Johanneum” (A.D. 200-258)

For those who are not familiar with the above heading, the “Comma Johanneum” refers to the disputed words found in the King James Version at 1 John chapter 5, verse 7. The text reads as follows:

“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one”

Primarily Investigation on some Background Information

It has been held by many scholars, many of whom are among the best in Textual Criticism, that the above reading as found in the King James Version (KJV), should not form part of the First Epistle of John, as they are not in the original as produced by the Apostle.

These words, they say, can only be traced in the Greek, to the 15th or 16th century, and found in Greek manuscripts of no real worth. The late date of these words in the Greek manuscript evidence, I will concur to. But, we must remember that we do not have all the Greek manuscripts that were copied during the centuries, and more importantly, we do not have the original manuscripts for any of the books of the New Testament! The oldest Greek manuscript that has come down to us with this passage, the Codex Sinaiticus, which dates from the 4th century.

It should be noted here, the attitude of some of the Textual Critics on this passage, where the wording of these scholars can be summed up by Dr Bruce Metzger:

“The Comma probably originated as a piece of allegorical exegesis of the three witnesses and may have been written as a marginal gloss in a Latin manuscript of 1 John, whence it was take into the text of the Old Latin Bible during the fifty century” (B M Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, p. 102. 1973 reprint)

Like all the evidence that is out there against the reading of this passage as found in the KJV, the arguments are based purely on probability, and conjecture, but never are there any solid facts produced! What I am going to show in this study, is the plain fact, that this passage was indeed know to, and quoted by, St Cyprian, who lived at least 100 years before the Codex Sinaiticus. And, though the text in question is in Latin (since Cyprian belonged to the Church which had Latin as its main language), yet, as I shall demonstrate, was also part of the Greek New Testament that this Church father used.

I owe it to the reader, to spend a little time here with regards to the lack of this reading in the ancient Greek manuscripts. I shall also touch upon the ancient versions of this Epistle.

We have already mentioned the fact, that the earliest Greek manuscript for 1 John, the Codex Sinaiticus, does not contain this verse as in the KJV. Nor do the other three or four principal Greek manuscripts, which date in the fourth and fifth centuries, have this reading. But, does this cause a problem with the evidence for this reading then? I think not!

I should point out here, that the two principal Greek manuscripts, the Codex Sinaiticus, and the Codex Vaticanus, which also dates from the middle of the fourth century. It is my opinion, for good reason, that far too much weight is placed upon these two manuscripts, as witnesses for the text of the Greek New Testament. There are certain facts from history, which I shall present here, that should be conclusive on the credibility of these two manuscripts.

The earliest Greek manuscripts, known as Papyrus manuscripts (as they were written using the papyrus plant), were written in “rolls” (libri) of Papyrus. We know from the evidence of Eusebius, the Church historian, that in about the year A.D. 331, the Emperor Constantine, ordered that fifty manuscripts of the Greek New Testament be made on “vellum”, in “Codex” format, for his new capital. (See, Frederic Kenyon; Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, p.41). We then have the words of Bruce Metzger, who writes,

“The suggestion has been made by several scholars that the two oldest parchment manuscripts of the Bible which are in existence today, namely codex Vaticanus and codex Sinaiticus, may have been among those ordered by Constantine. It has been pointed out that Eusebius’ curious expression, ‘volumes of threefold and fourfold forms’, agrees with the circumstances that these two codices have respectively three columns and four columns on each page” (Metzger, ibid, p. 7)

We further know from St Jerome (4th century), “that the (papyrus) volumes in the library of Pamphilus at Caesarea were replaced by copies on vellum through the efforts of Acacius and Euzoius (circ. 350)” (Kenyon, ibid). The year for this work of copying from payyrus to vellum by these two men, are the time most scholars give for the codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Of Acacius, we are told, that “he became the head of the courtly Arian party” (H Wace, and W Piercy, A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature, p.2; one volume edition). And of Euzoius, “Arian bishop of Antioch, the companion and intimate friend of Arius form an early age” (ibid, p.358). Arius, for the record, was the forerunner of the Jehovah’s Witnesses! Among other blasphemies, denied the Holy Trinity, Deity of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit! Can we trust any “copies” of the Scriptures made by these men? You, the reader must judge.

About the time these two codices were being “copied”, the Gothic Version of the Holy Bible was being made. This was the work of a “missionary” to the Goths, Ulfilas (died about 380). Like Acacius and Euzoius, Ulifilas was also an Arian, and his Arianism is clearly seen by his “translation of ‘isa theoi’, in Phil. 2:6, where he has rendered the Greek by: ‘ galeiko guda’ (= ‘similar to God’), whereas it should have been rendered, ‘ibna guda’ (“equal to God” - my translation) “ (Bruce Metzger; The Early Versions of the New Testament, p. 377). The point I am making with this example, is to show that ones “theological bias” does indeed have a bearing on how something one writes or speaks. There are many more examples that I can produce, but I think that I have said enough here.

I must bring to the readers attention an important case on textual criticism, which will shed more light on the evidence of the Greek manuscripts.
I refer to the famous passage in the Gospel of St. John, of the woman who is caught in adultery. The oldest Greek Manuscript that contains this passage, is the Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis, which is of the 5th century. All the Greek papyri and Codex manuscripts before this time that have come down to us, omit this passage, or mark it as doubtful. What, then are we to make of the words of Jerome, the author of the Latin Vulgate, who died in A.D. 420? Jerome, in his work, Contra Pelagium, says that the passage of the woman taken in adultery, is found in “many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin” (ii, 17). Many Greek Manuscripts? Where, then are these manuscripts? Augustine, who lived at the same time of Jerome, complains that people of little faith removed the passage! Then, how come the earliest Greek Manuscript that we have containing the passage, dates from the fifth century? It is clear, that from a very early time, the passage was removed from John’s Gospel! The first Greek father to refer to this passage as part of John’s Gospel, was Euthymius, who was from the 12th century! Is not at all more than probable, that our text from 1 John would have also have been removed at a very early time?
The Passage from Cyprian which shows he read 1 John 5:7

“Dicit Dominus, ego et Pater unum sumus, et iterum de Patre, et Filio et Spiritu Sancto, scriptum est, et tres unum sunt” (De Unitate Ecclesiae, Op.p.109)

“The Lord said, I and the Father are one, and again of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, it is written: and these three are one”

The first quotation is from John 10:30, where our Lord is speaking of the essential unity of Himself and the Father. “I and the Father”, two Persons, which is further shown by the use of the masculine, plural “sumus” (lit. “We are”. It is then followed by the neuter “hen” (lit “one thing”; not the masculine “heis “ ”one person”).

Cyprian then goes on to say, “et iterum...scriptum est”, that is, “and again...it is written”. It must be mentioned here, that whenever Cyprian was referring to, or quoting from a Scripture passage. Where else, besides 1 John 5:7 in the entire Bible do words even similar to these appear?

Now, how can anyone get around these plain words of Cyprian, where he no doubt quotes from 1 John 5:7? We do have a few work a rounds for this passage. Some say that the words are a “gloss”, that it, they were originally written in the margin of a New Testament, and then eventually some zealous Trinitarian scribe decided to include the words into the main text of John’s first Epistle. This is nothing but conjecture, as not a single copy of Greek manuscript, or ancient version in any language has been found where these words are written anywhere but the text itself! Then, we have those who suppose, like Facundus (Pro. Defens, iii.1,3), the Bishop of Hermiane (6th century), that Cyprian had before him the reference to “the Spirit, the water and the blood” in verse eight, and supposed that John was speaking of the Holy Trinity! Plausable, but not probable. There is indeed a passage in Cyprian’s writings, where he does mention a reference that “symbolises” the Trinity in a passage dealing with the three men in Daniel, who spent the third, sixth and ninth hour in prayer. So the passage runs;

“We find that the three children with Daniel, strong in faith and victorious in captivity, observed the third, sixth, and ninth hour, as it were, for a sacrament of the Trinity, which in the last times had to be manifested. For both the first hour in its progress to the third shows for the consummated number of the Trinity, and also the fourth proceeding to the sixth declares another Trinity; and when from the seventh the ninth is completed, the perfect Trinity is numbered every three hours (Dom. Orat. 34)”

However, it is one thing to comment upon a passage, but another to use the formula “it is written”, which Cyprian ONLY uses for an actual Scripture passage, and then to refer to something completely different! He is not commenting on 1 John 5:8, where, if he were, then, like he does in the above passage, would mention the words of verse eight, and then say that he sees a reference to the Holy Trinity in them. This would be acceptable. Dr John Ebrard, who rejects the words in 1 John 5:7 as being an “interpolation”, has this to say on the theory proposed by Facundus.

“Facundus, indeed (pro Defens 111.1,3), supposed that Cyprian had here in view only the words to pneuma kai to hudôr kai to haima hoi treis eis to hen eisin; having understood by pneuma the energy of the Holy Spirit in the Church, by the hudor the energy of the Father, and by the haima that of the Son. But, although it might be possible that Cyprian so understood the words ( and though, further, the Vulgate has translated eis to hen eisin by unum sunt), yet between possibility and probability there is a difference, and Cyprian’s words may be explained by the fact that in manuscripts which he had (of an old Latin version) the interpolation was already to be found. Thus was Cyprian’s sentence viewed by Fulgentius Ruspensis (Responsio ad Arianos); and, what is more important, Fulgentius himself quotes the critically-questionable words as St John’s, and therefore must have read them in his New Testament. (Fulgentius died A.D. 533)” (Biblical Commentary on the Epistles of St John, pp-325-326)

There can be no question that the words were known to Cyprian, and even did form part of His New Testament.. We shall now look at the testimony of Tertullain (160-220), who was also from Carthage in North Africa, where Cyprian had been Bishop, who used to refer to Tertullian as “his master”. The importance of Tertullian’s testimony here, especially in connection with Cyprian, will become clearer as we proceed.

Tertullian, in his work “Against Praxeas”, (who taught a Trinity where the Father actually suffered on the cross, where He identified the Father with the Son, and therefore failed to separate the Persons in the Godhead.) has a passage which says;

“And so the connection of the Father, and the Son, and of the Paraclete makes three cohering Persons, one in the other, which three are one (qui tres unum sunt) [in substance ‘unum’, not ‘one’ in number, ‘unus’]; in the same manner which it was said, ‘I and the Father are one’, to denote the unity of substance, not the singularity of number” (Ad Prax. C.25).

Some observations need to be made here. Firstly, it is interesting that, like Cyprian, Tertullian also uses John 10:30 with 1 John 5:7. Secondly, where, if not from 1 John 5:7, does Tertullian get the phrase, “qui tres unum sunt”? Thirdly, what does Tertullian mean with the phrase, “quomodo dictum est” (in the same manner which it was said)? And then quote from John 10:30? Fourthly, though, like Cyprian, Tertullian was of the Latin Church, yet we know that he “wrote particularly in Latin, but also in Greek. He also sometimes used a Latin Bible, sometimes a Greek, probably oftener the former than the latter. It is improbable that his Greek Bible was very different in text from the Greek text underlying his Latin Bible” (A Souter; The Text and canon of the New Testament, p.79). Frederic Kenyon adds, that Tertullian “seems often to have made his own translations from the Greek” (The Text of the Greek Bible, p.136).

This leads us to the conclusion on this, that there can be no doubt that the Greek Bible was available, and used in North Africa as early as middle of the second century, even though the Church in North Africa spoke mainly Latin. It is complete nonsense to assume with Dr Thomas Horne, who quotes Michaelis, the German theologian, who said;

“On the other hand, admitting that the words Et tres unum sunt – And these three are one – were so quoted from the verse in question, Michaelis asks whether a passage found in no ancient Greek manuscript, quoted by no Greek father, and contained in no other ancient version but the Latin, is therefore to be pronounced genuine, merely because one single Latin father of the first three centuries, who was bishop of Carthage, where the Latin version only was used, and where Greek was unknown, has quoted it?” (An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, vol.IV, p.461)

The reference here is to Cyprian, who, it is wrongly assumed, had no knowledge of Greek, and therefore only used the Latin Bible. Such arguments in Textual Criticism clearly show that complete lack of knowledge of the facts, or the misuse of them to prove a point. This is not new, as most of those who reject this passage in 1 John, have done so mainly on the basis of other big names before them, and not because they have cared to examine the evidence for themselves. Cyprian, we are told, received “a good Greek education” (Elgin S Moyer; The Wycliffe Biographical Dictionary of the Church, p.108). Can anyone be said to have received a good Greek education, without learning Greek? Further evidence of Cyprian’s knowledge of Greek can be found in his correspondence with Bishop Firmilian. “Before the winter of 256* Cyprian’s messengers to Firmilian returned with (10) his reply, the most enthusiastic letter of the series. We have it in Cyprian’s translation from the Greek” (H Wace and W Piercy, ibid, pp.228-229). Again I must ask, is it possible to translate from Greek, if one has know knowledge of the language? There can be no doubt to the honest mind, that the facts speak for themselves, and the evidence, not conjecture, is, that Cyprian, like Tertullian, fully knew the Greek language, would no doubt have had the entire Bible in Greek as well as Latin! Can anyone still doubt that, not only was the disputed passage know to both Tertullian and Cyprian, but that it would have been in both the Greek as well as the Latin Epistle of John! To argue that Cyprian did not know Greek, is, in my opinion, like arguing to the wind!

The Evidence of a Single Latin Father Should not be Considered!

I refer the reader back to the passage from Dr Horne as quoted above, where he mentions the objections of Michaelis. This argument now leads us to the evidence of the passage as quoted by one Church father, namely Cyprian, which is objected to because he belonged to the Latin Church, as was a sole witness to the disputed words. I don’t think that Dr Michaelis, by saying this, is actually admitting that Cyprian read the words, but that even if he did, his testimony does not amount to much, as it is only his testimony, against the bulk of witnesses that are against this passage.

I would like to refer the reader to Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians, chapter two, and verse two. Here the King James Version reads: “…to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ”. Now, a textual study of this text from the external evidence that we have, reveals no less than fifteen readings for this! The reading found in most modern versions, is, “…to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God Christ” (lit. “tou Theou Christou”), which has been accepted as the “original” for this text. It should be noted, that all the Critical Greek New Testaments (Greisbach, Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, Alford), accepted this reading, not because it is read in the only Greek Manuscript, the Codex Vatanicus, but, because it was known to the Church father, Hilary. For those who are not familiar with the Church fathers, Hilary was Bishop of Poitiers in the fourth century (315-368), and, like Cyprian, was of the Latin Church! This is not the oldest reading. Clement of Alexandria, who lived almost 200 years before Hilary, and who was of the Greek Church, here reads: “tou theou tou en Christoi” (of God in Christ). This reading also has the support of the so-called “Queen of the Cursives” (manuscripts written in running hand, as opposed to those written in contracted, capital letters), which goes by the number 33. It dates from about the 9th century, but this late date does not detract from its importance as a credible witness to the early text. Granted that the Papyri Greek Manuscript, the P46 also supports the reading of Hilary, and is of the early part of the third century. But, this Mss. Was not available to any of the above Textual Critics when they complied their Critical Versions of the Greek New Testament, so this did not contribute to their decision on textual matters. I am not altogether clear as to how the evidence is weighed when determining which is the correct reading for a passage. My own investigations cause me some serious concerns, when I see the evidence for important passages are not correctly used, or ignored altogether. Let us keep with the same Papyri Mss. (P46). Besides the reading it has for Colossians 2:2, which supports the testimony of Hilary and the Codex Vatanicus, this Mss. has in an important verse for the Deity of Jesus Christ, support for which I believe to be the original reading, as found in the KJV. The passage I refer to is 1 Corinthians 10:9, where the reading “Christ” has been replaced by either “Lord” or “God”, mainly the former. But, you may say, there can’t be any problem with this, as it must refer to Jesus. Not so! Paul here is referring to the passage in Numbers chapter 21, verses 5-6, where the LORD (YHWH) is said to have sent the serpents among the children of Israel. With the reading “Christ” there is no doubt that only Jesus can be meant. But, with either of the other readings, it is more likely that the Father is meant. On the textual evidence, beside the evidence of P46, the support for the reading “Christ” is very strong, both for its diversity, and its age. For the former, it is supported by a host of Greek Manuscripts, and Greek Church fathers. Add to this the following Ancient Versions: Old Latin, Latin Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic, Georgian, and Salvonic, which is the greater majority of the Versions. Then we also have the evidence from the Latin fathers, and also the heretic, Marcion! For the latter it can be said, that this reading dates from as early as 100 A.D., which would be the date for the manuscripts for the basis of the Old Latin Version. The heretic Marcion lived around 140 A.D, where his copy of this Epistle would no doubt date earlier than this. It might be said here, that the evidence for either of the other readings is no comparison! Yet, in spite of all this very strong evidence, The Greek New Testament issued by the United Bible Societies (4th Edition. 1994), give the reading “Christ” a “B” mark. This mark “indicates that the text is almost certain” (p.3*). The “A” mark “indicates that the text is certain”. By giving this reading the “B” mark, the Committee shows that there is some doubt to the reading adopted! However, there is no doubt in my mind, that if the evidence is viewed honestly, then the reading “Christ” is the only one possible. It is evident that the enemy made sure that this reference to Christ’s Deity did not stand, as he did for other great texts like 1 Timothy 3:16, and like he has also succeeded in 1 John 5:7, if the so-called expert scholars can be relied upon!

I shall end by quoting the words of Dr Frederick Scrivener, who , though he did not accept the text of 1 John 5:7 as being that of the Apostle, had this to say of the evidence of Cyprian. “It is surely safer and more candid to admit that Cyprian read ver. 7 in his copies, than to resort to the explanation of Facundus [vi], that the holy Bishop was merely putting on ver.8 a spiritual meaning” (A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, vol. II, p.405)

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

There is not one shread of evidence, that Cyprian ever used verse eight for the Holy Trinity. This theory was suggested by those who simply cannot accept the fact that Cyprian actually quotes verse 7. Let us not forget that Cyprian says: "again, it is written", which can only be a reference to Scripture, as he was making a connection to John 10:30, which also speaks of the plurality of Persons in the Godhead, and unity in essence! These are exactly the same two verses that Tertullian used.

I am not going to try to convince anyone, as many already have their minds shut, being convinced by the nonsense that modern textual scholars write on these matters. If you study the external and internal evidence as I have, then you will see for yourself that 1 John 5:7 is part of the original!

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

Craig, I suppose that you are aware of the problems that even the "orthodox" Church fathers had on the Holy Trinity, as there were many, like Basil the great, who would not accept the full Deity of the Holy Spirit?. Add to these name those of Hilary, Gregory of Nazianzen, etc. See Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, volume 2, page 663 onwards). Even the otherwise Evangelical, Dr James Denney, would not call Jesus "God", for example in John 1:1, but was content in calling Him, "a god"!

Did you also know, that 1 Corinthians 8:6 used to read:

"But unto us, one God the father, of Whom all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by Whom all things, and we by him; and one Holy Spirit, in Whom all things, and we in Him"?

This reading can be found in Greek as well as Latin Church fathers, as well in the text of the Fifth Gereral Council of A.D. 553. Also, the Arian heretic, Eunomius, knew of this reading!

No doubt again, like 1 John 5:7, it was corrupted by some heretic!

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

Also, what of the problem with the Greek (NOT English) grammar of the passage without verse seven? How can anyone explain it?

**********************************

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

*************************************


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

natters, you wrote:

"Again, if it was, why is it completely absent from all discussions and councils that dealt with Arianism for a time span of approx 150 years??? Can you imagine 1 Thess 4:15 never being quoted by anyone discussing and debating the rapture over a period of 150 years?"

This does not prove that the text was not around at this time. It must be remembered, that there are instances where as Church father quotes a verse in one way in one of his writings, and in another work, he has the text read completely differently!

The is a "Prologue" to the Catholic Epistles under the name of Jerome (his authorship of this work has not been disproved. I have read all the objections raised against this being the work of Jerome, and have no doubt that it is his word), in which Jerome complains of "unfaithful translators removing the testimony to the Three Heavenly Witnesses", though Jerome himself says that the words were in Greek manuscripts of his time! As I showed before, commenting on John 7:52-8:11, Jerome says that the passage of the woman in adultery was found in "many Greek and Latin manuscripts". However, the earliest Greek-Latin manuscript that does have the passage, is a fifth or sixth century one, much after the death of Jerome! Where then are these "many Greek and Latin manuscripts"?

You ask if 1 John 5:7 was available during the 4th century, the it should have been used. The fourth century was the time when the Person of Jesus Christ was the centre of discussions. Both His Deity and Humanity were being challenged. How many of the Church fathers do you know, who used 1 Timothy 3:16 against the heretic Arius? The verse reading, "God was manifested in the flesh..." (not the corrupted "He", etc) was known to the Greek fathers, such as, Didymus, Gregory of Nyssa, who qouted it at least 22 times!, John Damascus, Chrysostom, Gregory of Naz., Diodorus, etc (the Latin fathers who quote it have "qui" [which])Yet, the good friend of both the Gregory's, Basil the great does not seem to be aware of the reading "God". Nor does Cyril of Alexandria. Nor did the "champion" of the Orthodox party, who fought so much against the demonic heresy of Arius, Athanasius, know of this reading! But, the evidence clearly shows that the reading was around in his time! In fact, Didymus "the blind" who has "God was manifested in the flesh..." in his writings, was a close, personal friend of Athanasius! Yet, in spite of all of the evidence that clearly shows that "God was manifested in the flesh..." is in fact the work of the apostle Paul, yet it was not used by many against the heresy of Arius, though some did so!

You say that 1 John 5:7 was not used in any of the discussions of the Councils. This is incorrect. The last quote that I gave earlier from the Latin writings of Tertullian, Cyprian, was from the great Council in the 5th century of African Bishops, where the Statement of Faith produced by this council, and presented to the anti-Trinitarian Arian king, Hunnerc, actual refers to this very verse to prove the Trinity! Something they would not have done if it could have been contradicted!

The argument by Michaelis, which is repeated by Dr Thomas Horne, and others, that the testimony of Cyprian is to be rejected because he was a Church father who wrote and spoke Latin! This is what I call desperate measures! We know that Cyprian's parents saw to it that their son, though from North Africa, where Latin was the main language, got himself a Greek education! Can anyone have a Greek education and not know any Greek? We also know, that an Epistle that Cyprian received from Firmillan which was in Greek, and Cyprian translated it into Latin himself! There is no doubt that Tertillian, who was also from North Africa, was in the habit of translating the Greek New Testament into Latin. There can be no doubt that Cyprian himself also possessed a copy of the New Testament in Greek.

How do we know that Cyprian was NOT quoting from verse eight? This is quite simple. Verse eight reads: "et hi tres in unum sunt"; whereas Cyprian wrote: "et tres unum sunt", which is what the seventh verse has, without the "in" = "and the three are in one"!

I might add another important point here. In the Greek text of verse eight, the final clause reads: "kai hoi treis eis to hen eisin". Now, if you know Greek grammar, can you answer me this one question. To what purpose did John use the definite article, "to" in this verse? It is never translated into English. But, why did he use it here? We do kmow that one of the uses of the defenite article in the Greek, is for "renewed mention", when something that has been said before, is simply "pointed to" by the use of the Greek article in its repeated use. In our present case, the Greek article "to" is attached to "hen" (one), whereby referring it pack to its "previous use". But, apart from its use in verse seven, where else in this chapter is it used? Without verse seven, the Greek article in verse eight is pointless!

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

Yes, and pigs might fly!

I don't see any hard evidence in the argument by Dr Wallace, just a statement by someone who is anti-KJV, and like Dr A T Robertson, the great Greek scholar, does come out with some complete nonsense when dealing with are area where they seem to know very little about!

Again it is sad to see such statements, like Cyprian being the source of 1 John 5:7, without any evidence at all. As this leaves us open to the charge that any Scripture then can be the work of someone other than God! Get real! Just because someone cannot accept certain facts, which might go against their understanding, does not give them the right to introduce fancy ideas about the testimony. The fact that Dr Wallace's article is as short as it is, shows me that he has got his "evidence" second-hand!

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

"Gregory of Nazianzen, who for his own part believed and taught the consubstantiality of the Holy Ghost with the Father and the Son, so late as 380 made the remarkable confession: 'Of the wise among us, some consider the Holy Ghost an influence, others, a creature, others God Himself, and again others know not which way to decide, from reverence, as they say, for the Holy Scripture, which declares nothing exact in the case. For this reason they waver between worshipping and no worshipping the Holy Ghost, and strike a middle course, which is in fact, however, a bad one. Basil in 370, still carefully avoided calling the Holy Ghost God, though with the view of gaining the weak. Hilary of Poietiers believed that the Spirit, who searches the deep things of God, must be divine, but could find no Scripture passage in which he is called God" (Philip Schaff; History of the Christian Church, vol.II, p 664)

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

If Cyprian is indeed the source, then it wouldn't be original scripture to begin with.

"IF", are you going to be content with mere speculation? If we do not deal with the facts, then there is no point in believing any of the Bible itself, as sooner or later there will be someone who will say, maybe that verse in John 3:16 was not part of the original, it was something that actually came from the writings of Augustine! The words are in Cyprian's works, now, only someone, like Daniel Wallace, who cannot accept that 1 John 5:7 is part of the epistle, will deal with conjecture!

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

YES. I have spent many, many hours here in the major libaries in London, examining the Greek, Latin manuscripts, some original, some very good facimilies, and the works of the Church fathers in the original as well! So, my evidence is not borrowed from Bruce M Metzger, etc!

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

natters:

"I am trying to deal with the facts. So far, you have not proven conclusively that Tertullian or Cyprian quoted the verse, let alone the verse even existed prior to the Nicene and Constantinople Councils"

What, do you want Tertullian and Cyprian to tell you directly that they saw these words in 1 John 5:7? You choose, like Scott J not to accept the evidence that there is, even though, as I have shown, that the internal Greek grammar determines that the words HAVE TO BE THERE! Neither you or any of the others have even answered the internal grammatical evidence! Why not?

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

Craig, instead of coming on here and making a fool of yourself, you should get your facts right in the first place, and then come back to put me right! Maybe, before you start to give Greek grammar lessons, you should take some in the first place, as your arguments are nonsense!

Firstly, you say: "Wrong! There is no participle, masculine or otherwise, in 1 John 5:8. The participle of which you speak is found in verse 7, just as it should be"

First mistake! There is a participle in verse eight, which you choose not to see! What then is "oi marturountes" (who bear witness), if this is not in verse eight? You yourself admit to this towards the end of your note, "The Greek masculine participle oi marturountes agrees with the Greek"! Can you at least KNOW what you are talking about, BEFORE making stupid assertions! By the way, the participle is in the right place, for your information!

You say that the masculine is used because of "Personification". Again, do you know the meaning of this word, or just us it because it is used by some who simply cannot honestly answer the plain fact that they are wrong? To "personify", is "to represent an abstract quality as a human being". Do you know what this means? It means that John was "treating the Holy Spirit as though He were a Person"!!! Do you get it? This is complete nonsense, as the Holy Spirit IS a Person, and not to be "regarded" as One! Again, your "facts" are flawed!

Let me give you the low down on the Greek grammar, if you would but listen

If you understand Greek grammar, as you claim to, then you should know that there is something known as "agreemtnt of gender"? In verse six, when dealing with the same nouns as in verse eight, "Spirit, water and blood", John speaks of the "witness of the Holy Spirit". But, note here, that he says: "to pneuma estin to marturoun", which agrees with the gender of the nouns, all in the neuter. This is in accordance with the rules of Greek grammar. Now, when dealing with the same nouns in verse eight, all again in the neuter gender, he would have written: "tria eisi ta marturounta", which is in the neuter gender! He would not have changed to the masculine gender in verse eight, for the sake of Personification, as you put it, as he has already mentioned the Holy Spirit in verse six, where he was content in keeping the language in the neuter! Facts are facts!

You can argue all you like, but the truth of the matter is very simple. Without the masculine nouns "Pater and Logos" in verse seven, there is not a reason in all the world why John would have used the masculine participle in verse eight! Even some who object to the genuineness of verse seven because of the manuscript evidence, admit that the Greek grammar does indeed cause a problem!
On word on the use of the definite article in verse eight "to hen" The Greek scholar who was and remains foremost on Greek grammar, espacially on the use of the Greek article in the New Testament, Bishop Thomas Middleton, says that the use of the article in verse eight must necessarily refer to the use of "hen" in verse seven. And that either both verses are accepted together, or rejected together (see, The Doctrine of the Greek Article, pp.633-653) Or, do you put yourself as a greater Greek authority than Bishop Middleton? It is interesting to see that Dr Daniel Wallace, who is a Greek scholar, has not put out an article to refute the internal evidence of this passage, but instead chose to write one on the testimony of Cyprian, which is incorrect!

As I have said more than once. The Greek grammar of the passage alone will destroy any attempt to rid the passage of verse seven. At least to the honest mind

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

You again prove your ignorance to the facts. To many and millions out there who accept the KJV and NKJV, we accept BOTH VERSES as being part of the original epistle. In this case, if you would open your eyes, the participle, "marturountes" in in BOTH VERSES!!!. Even if we were to accept the shorter reading with verse seven and part of verse eight removed, then why is "treis eisin hoi marturountes" in the masculine gender, where the "rule" in Greek grammar demands that there be an "agreement" in the grammar. But, of course you wilfully do not see this. You have still not shown, why John would deal with the same neuter nouns in verse six, and use the participle in the neuter as well, even though he mentions the Holy Spirit as a Person, and yet, when he comes to verse eight, he finds that he needs to "personify" the "Spirit, water and blood". For what reason? Is this the best that you can do, because it is complete nonsense, and you really must know this!

I want you to deal with the use of the masculine participle in verse eight, when it is used with neuter nouns. I suppose in your own mind, the common rules of Greek grammar were here stepped aside for no reason whatsoever! Please lets deal with facts, and not a hot head!

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

So, as I said, you think yourself a better Greek scholar that Bishop Middleton, who, though did not accept the passage because of the lack of external evidence, yet was honest enough to admit that the internal Greek grammar causes a problem without the words being restored!
========================================

Which scholars? Regardless of what these so-called "scholars" might say, there are very important internal, grammatical questions that can ONLY be answered by the disputed words being retained to their rightful place. I believe, that the Lord in His Providence, ensured that Erasmus restored that which was removed by enemies of the Truth on the Holy Trinity. This is the clearest verse in Scripture for the Holy Trinity, just as 1 Timothy 3:16 with "God" in the text is for the Deity of Jesus Christ.

So, when you say that "scholars" have decided that 1 John 5:7 is a "gloss", then I have the same respect for these guys as I have for those who say that "young woman" is the correct reading in Isaiah 7:14!

========================================
Lets not worry too much about the Beacon Bible Commentary, as this is not the Holy Bible!

If you, like some others accept that the reference in Isaiah 7:14 is not a prophecy fulfilled in the birth of Jesus Christ, then we have a case of Biblical error, and that by the Holy Spirit!

I assume that you believe in the plenary inspiration of the original Holy Scriptures? Can I also assume that you accept the complete inerrancy of the Holy Bible, again in the original autographs? If you answer yes to both, then read on.

Let me remind you of Matthew 1:22-23

"Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying: Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us"

Do you see that Matthew actually here quotes from Isaiah chapter 7? And here he takes the reference to the Virgin Birth and says that it was fulfilled in the birth of our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ! Are you saying that Matthew, who wrote under the hand of the Holy Spirit, is wrong! You should also note, that Matthew does not quote from Isaiah 7:14 with the Greek word: "neanis", which would strictly mean a "young woman". However, he does use the Greek: "parthenos", which cannot be used to describe someone who is not a "virgin", something not true of "neanis"

The great Hebrew scholars, Drs Edward J Young and Robert Dick Wilson, have done a complete study on the use of "almah", and conclude that it is never used of someone who is not a "virgin"!

Read the words of Dr Young:


" Why, however, did he choose the word 'almah? The answer is ready at hand, for 'almah is a word which is never used of a married woman. Of all the words listed above, 'almah alone seems to have this distinction. This fact has often been pointed out. In the Old Testament itself the word does not occur frequently, but even these frequent occurrences show that it is not used of a married woman. Dr. Robert Dick Wilson in 1926 made an exhaustive study of the usages of the word outside the Old Testament and came to the conclusion, which has never been refuted, that outside the Old Testament also the word is not employed of a married woman. In 1929 the texts at ancient Ugarit, modern Ras Shamra, were discovered, and these have further light to cast upon the situation. One of these texts (Nikkal and Yarih) describes a wedding between the gods. In proclaiming the wedding, the bard sings of the woman to be married as one who will have a son. "Behold," he cries in language similar to that of our text, "a virgin will bear . . . behold, an 'almah will bear a son . . ." What is of significance here is that the word 'almah, used in Ras Shamra, is employed of the woman only before she is married. After the marriage an entirely different word is used to designate her as a married woman. The results of Dr. Wilson's investagation, then, can be extended to Ugarit. On these texts the word 'almah is never employed to designate a married woman, but only an unmarried one. (All the evidence I have collected in Studies in Isaiah, 1954.)"

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

Almah in Isaiah 7:14 IS a reference to the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ ONLY! It is NOT a "dual prophesy" as some wrongly assume!. In which case it can only mean, "virgin"! It this clear?

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

Craig. It is clear from your response, that you do NOT understand Greek gramar! You assume, incorrectly, that it is not a problem with the grammar for John to have introduced the masculine, to describe what would require the neuter, having already just used the neuter for the same nouns in verse six. I see no point in any further discussion on this, as it is very plain to me that you need to get your Greek grammar sorted out first, and then return. You will then see that you are wrong!

I will recommend three good books that are useful

1. A T Robertson's large work
2. W E Winer, Greek Grammar
3. William Goodwin, Greek Grammar

I will not respond to any more of your posts on this, as its like talking to a wall, since we are talking serious misunderstanding of the basic rules of Greek grammar here!


=======================================
 
Last edited:
Top