The Catholic Comma Johanneum is in my NET Bible.

bgwilkinson

Active member
Doctor
Elect
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
10
Points
38
Well look at this text critical note wherein is the infamous Catholic Church Comma Johanneum. The translators did not leave this verse out of the NET Bible. It's there in Greek and English. More translation honesty. Just love my NET Bible.


20 tc Before τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα (to pneuma kai to hudor kai to haima), the Textus Receptus (TR) reads ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ,ὁ πατήρ,ὁ λόγος,καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα,καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. 1Jo 5:8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ ("in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 1Jo 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth"). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence - both external and internal - is decidedly against its authenticity. For a detailed discussion, see TCGNT 647–49. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence. This longer reading is found only in nine late MSS, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these MSS (221 2318 [18th century] 2473 [dated 1634] and [with minor variations] 61 88 429 629 636 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest ms, codex 221 (10th century) includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. The oldest ms with the Comma in its text is from the 14th century (629), but the wording here departs from all the other MSS in several places. The next oldest MSS on behalf of the Comma, 88 (12th century) 429 (14th) 636 (15th), also have the reading only as a marginal note (v.l.). The remaining MSS are from the 16th to 18th centuries. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek ms until the 14th century (629), and that ms deviates from all others in its wording; the wording that matches what is found in the TR was apparently composed after Erasmus' Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the Comma appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either ms, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until A.D. 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. The reading seems to have arisen in a 4th century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus' Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared, there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek MSS that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written in ca. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this ms sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text, as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever MSS he could for the production of his text. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: He did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold. Modern advocates of the TR and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings - even in places where the TR/Byzantine MSS lack them. Further, these advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: Since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. (Of course, this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text.) In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum goes back to the original text yet does not appear until the 14th century in any Greek MSS (and that form is significantly different from what is printed in the TR; the wording of the TR is not found in any Greek MSS until the 16th century)? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: Faith must be rooted in history. Significantly, the German translation of Luther was based on Erasmus' second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza's 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus' third and later editions (and Stephanus' editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others.

 
Hi,

1 John 5:7-8 

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

And there are three that bear witness in earth,
the spirit, and the water, and the blood:
and these three agree in one.


Do you consider the dozens of Reformation Christian commentators and scholars who support the authenticity of the heavenly witnesses "Catholic"?

Do you consider the wealth of early evidences, (generally omitted by Daniel Wallace) of the verse authenticity "Catholic"?

Perhaps you are using Catholic in the wider sense of universal, where it could make sense.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven
 
Steven Avery said:
Hi,

1 John 5:7-8 

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

And there are three that bear witness in earth,
the spirit, and the water, and the blood:
and these three agree in one.


Do you consider the dozens of Reformation Christian commentators and scholars who support the authenticity of the heavenly witnesses "Catholic"?

Do you consider the wealth of early evidences, (generally omitted by Daniel Wallace) of the verse authenticity "Catholic"?

Perhaps you are using Catholic in the wider sense of universal, where it could make sense.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven
Unfortunately, no.  He has been on a tear lately, trying to establish the AV as a descendent from the Douay-Rheims.  He hoped to ascertain some Romish bent in the common English Bible, by showing the "1800+" places where the KJV lines up with the D-R.
I mocked this before, and I mock it now.
The translators, doing the Spirit's bidding, gave us an English translation that damned  Popish persons from the Epistle Dedicatory on, including the very Anglican Catholic Church that they were members of...although half in the crowd were reformers seeking to purify the Anglish Church.
Infant Baptism
Maryolatry
Forbidding marriage
Abstaining from meats (Lenten practices) the latter two called plainly the 'doctrines of devils'.
Queen of Heaven, Tammuz exposed.
Works salvation
Purgatory
And much more...
If they had sought to endorse Rome, they failed miserably, having put out the most anti-RCC Canon extant.


Anishinaabe

 
prophet said:
Steven Avery said:
Hi,

1 John 5:7-8 

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

And there are three that bear witness in earth,
the spirit, and the water, and the blood:
and these three agree in one.


Do you consider the dozens of Reformation Christian commentators and scholars who support the authenticity of the heavenly witnesses "Catholic"?

Do you consider the wealth of early evidences, (generally omitted by Daniel Wallace) of the verse authenticity "Catholic"?

Perhaps you are using Catholic in the wider sense of universal, where it could make sense.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven
Unfortunately, no.  He has been on a tear lately, trying to establish the AV as a descendent from the Douay-Rheims.  He hoped to ascertain some Romish bent in the common English Bible, by showing the "1800+" places where the KJV lines up with the D-R.
I mocked this before, and I mock it now.
The translators, doing the Spirit's bidding, gave us an English translation that damned  Popish persons from the Epistle Dedicatory on, including the very Anglican Catholic Church that they were members of...although half in the crowd were reformers seeking to purify the Anglish Church.
Infant Baptism
Maryolatry
Forbidding marriage
Abstaining from meats (Lenten practices) the latter two called plainly the 'doctrines of devils'.
Queen of Heaven, Tammuz exposed.
Works salvation
Purgatory
And much more...
If they had sought to endorse Rome, they failed miserably, having put out the most anti-RCC Canon extant.


Anishinaabe

You should really watch out for who you fellowship with here. Avery will not stick around very long and he pretty much denies the Trinity. Its comical that he will even attempt to support the variant... he actually doesn't believe a thing it says or teaches.
 
Hi,

A variant that is not scripture does not "teach", it is the abominable tampering of man.

Scripture teaches.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven
 
Steven Avery said:
Hi,

A variant that is not scripture does not "teach", it is the abominable tampering of man.

Scripture teaches.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

Yet, you claim to believe this variant. Why is that?
 
Hi,

Simply because the "variant", the inclusion of the heavenly witnesses, is the Johannine scripture.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
 
christundivided said:
prophet said:
Steven Avery said:
Hi,

1 John 5:7-8 

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

And there are three that bear witness in earth,
the spirit, and the water, and the blood:
and these three agree in one.


Do you consider the dozens of Reformation Christian commentators and scholars who support the authenticity of the heavenly witnesses "Catholic"?

Do you consider the wealth of early evidences, (generally omitted by Daniel Wallace) of the verse authenticity "Catholic"?

Perhaps you are using Catholic in the wider sense of universal, where it could make sense.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven
Unfortunately, no.  He has been on a tear lately, trying to establish the AV as a descendent from the Douay-Rheims.  He hoped to ascertain some Romish bent in the common English Bible, by showing the "1800+" places where the KJV lines up with the D-R.
I mocked this before, and I mock it now.
The translators, doing the Spirit's bidding, gave us an English translation that damned  Popish persons from the Epistle Dedicatory on, including the very Anglican Catholic Church that they were members of...although half in the crowd were reformers seeking to purify the Anglish Church.
Infant Baptism
Maryolatry
Forbidding marriage
Abstaining from meats (Lenten practices) the latter two called plainly the 'doctrines of devils'.
Queen of Heaven, Tammuz exposed.
Works salvation
Purgatory
And much more...
If they had sought to endorse Rome, they failed miserably, having put out the most anti-RCC Canon extant.


Anishinaabe

You should really watch out for who you fellowship with here. Avery will not stick around very long and he pretty much denies the Trinity. Its comical that he will even attempt to support the variant... he actually doesn't believe a thing it says or teaches.
My point was to see the trend in BGW's ' Jesuit-like' descent.
My post stands alone.  It was answering S.A. directly, but was addressing BGW.
Forget the who's, here.  What is your take on the absence of Popish doctrine, from a committee who had it within their power to endorse their own errors?

Anishinabe

 
Hi,

The distortions and omissions of the Daniel Wallace piece makes it a trash summary. Here I will touch on a point or two, if there is more interest the topic makes a fine study.


bgwilkinson said:
The reading seems to have arisen in a 4th century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity.
"Seems to have arisen" is euphemism speech for:

"there is no tangible evidence whatsoever for this, but it makes a good wild conjecture, since we can't come up with anything better and we have to say something".


bgwilkinson said:
75.msg50548#msg50548 date=1380679743] From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate,

The Vulgate Prologue (Letter to Damasus) with solid 1st person attestation from Jerome directly references the verse.  And the tendency for the heavenly witnesses to be dropped by unfaithful scribes.  The Prologue is written in the style of Jerome with specific greetings to Eustochium, and is complementary to his knowledge on e.g. the book order of the Latin Bible. (Note that there is a separate evidence that Augustine preferred not to use the verse.)

And this Vulgate Prologue is even in the most ancient extant Vulgate manuscript, the Codex Fuldensis of 546 AD!  The Codex itself omits the verse, a strong indication of two separate lines of transmission unto Fuldensis, the Prologue and the 1 John text, and a solid indication that the warning of the Prologue was about a real phenomenon.

There was a vapid claim that this Prologue was a forgery, a claim made in the crucible of heavenly witnesses debate (for many, the claim was circular argumentation). And the claim was largely based on the lateness, at that time, of any extant Prologue with the section, which was about 800 AD!  Oops.  The Codex Fuldensis discovery around 1850 should have put this forgery of convenience idea to rest.

And nobody has ever come up with a sensible super-forgery rogue writer and a theory of motive unto such amazing success of the supposed forgery.  Fooling even the learned Victor of Capua who had oversight over Fuldensis, and all this (super-forgery, transmission, acceptance) only one century after the death of Jerome. And some like Westcott have taken the circularity to the max, essentially claiming that it was part of a nefarious plot to bring the heavenly witnesses verse to the fore.

And the heavenly witnesses verse is in about 95% of the extant Latin Vulgate manuscripts.  (Oh, Wallace omitted that little piece of information, also the Old Latin ms inclusion.)

To omit all of this, just to try to give the impression of a late addition, is absurd.  Even more so if you understand that the Old Latin manuscripts and evidences are strongly for heavenly witnesses authenticity.

=========


This is supposed to be a summary of the external evidences, now let's mention another omission.

In 484 AD there was a council at Carthage with the orthodox contra the arians under Huneric.  The confession of faith of the orthodox, representing over 400 bishops (Harduin's Collection of Councils names the 461, per Franzelin) to be in the Bibles of all sides, to be used in such a forthright manner in a Bible debate.  A 4th-century Latin homily could never have that vector of transmission.

There is much more, but anybody who goes to and uses Daniel Wallace for an external evidence summary of the heavenly witnesses is simply a dupe.

(Note: this was written on the road, so I am not so easily checking every small detail aspect, however the material is all very well known at this point and any sincere questions about the above I would be happy to address.)

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 
bgwilkinson said:
Well look at this text critical note wherein is the infamous Catholic Church Comma Johanneum. The translators did not leave this verse out of the NET Bible. It's there in Greek and English. More translation honesty. Just love my NET Bible.


20 tc Before τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα (to pneuma kai to hudor kai to haima), the Textus Receptus (TR) reads ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ,ὁ πατήρ,ὁ λόγος,καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα,καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. 1Jo 5:8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ ("in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 1Jo 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth"). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence - both external and internal - is decidedly against its authenticity. For a detailed discussion, see TCGNT 647–49. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence. This longer reading is found only in nine late MSS, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these MSS (221 2318 [18th century] 2473 [dated 1634] and [with minor variations] 61 88 429 629 636 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest ms, codex 221 (10th century) includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. The oldest ms with the Comma in its text is from the 14th century (629), but the wording here departs from all the other MSS in several places. The next oldest MSS on behalf of the Comma, 88 (12th century) 429 (14th) 636 (15th), also have the reading only as a marginal note (v.l.). The remaining MSS are from the 16th to 18th centuries. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek ms until the 14th century (629), and that ms deviates from all others in its wording; the wording that matches what is found in the TR was apparently composed after Erasmus' Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the Comma appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either ms, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until A.D. 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. The reading seems to have arisen in a 4th century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus' Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared, there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek MSS that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written in ca. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this ms sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text, as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever MSS he could for the production of his text. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: He did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold. Modern advocates of the TR and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings - even in places where the TR/Byzantine MSS lack them. Further, these advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: Since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. (Of course, this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text.) In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum goes back to the original text yet does not appear until the 14th century in any Greek MSS (and that form is significantly different from what is printed in the TR; the wording of the TR is not found in any Greek MSS until the 16th century)? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: Faith must be rooted in history. Significantly, the German translation of Luther was based on Erasmus' second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza's 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus' third and later editions (and Stephanus' editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others.


While writing the Latin Vulgate, Jerome question why so many of the Greek Text where missing the Comma, so from his comment it could be derived that some Greek Texts contain the Comma.  But to say that this was probably added at a must later date, one must figure out how Cyprian quoted it directly in 250AD a much earlier date than our oldest and best manuscripts; but most Bible Scholars chose to ignore this fact along with the fact in the 2nd and 3rd Century the Church was in a heated debate over Trinitarian and arian view of Jesus.  So that while a majority of this time the church was arian, but after this period the church held a strict view that God is a Trinity.  So it is likely that many unhonest arians didn't like I John 5:7 so they removed the phrase they didn't like.

Unforutanely for these arians the Old Testament was already set so they couldn't so easily remove Isaiah 48:16-17.
But sadly for us saints today one nearly has to go thru a book size report to try to provide these words in a debate:
For there are Three that bear record in heaven, The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are One.
I John 5:7

And than maybe they can be used, but usually not.
Yet it seems that in every Gospel in the Bible God gave Witness of Himself which was recorded in Jesus Baptism for the Father spoke from heaven, and the Son had descended to earth from heaven, and the Holy Spirit had descended as a dove. 
 
I am no longer a King James Onlyist and strongly oppose the worship of the King James Version.  I now use a HCSB translation so don't take this the wrong way.  I simply want to know if Ruckman's facts are straight on this particular point since the longer reading adds nothing nor takes away anything from the doctrine of the Trinity.  Here is Ruckman's defense of it with his own emphasis.

"The 'Johanine comma' is found in TWO Greek manuscripts - contrary to the lying that goes on in the classroom - Codex Ravianus and No. 61.  It is also found in the marginal notes on Greek manuscripts 88 and 629.  It is also quoted by Cyprian more than sixty years before Vaticanus and Sinaiticus cut it out.  It is also cited numerous times by African Christians from 430-534 (Hills, Bible Believing Study, p. 190).  Cassiodorus quotes it (480-570) and it also is found in the Old Latin (MS R) written more than one hundred years before Vaticanus and Sinaiticus cut it out.  Furthermore, without the "comma" the gender of the nouns do not match in the New ASV text, the mongrel Nestle's-Hort-Aland-Metzger-ecclectic wet dog of apostate Christendom."  (Taken from "Problem Texts," 1980)
 
Hi,

biscuit1953 said:
I simply want to know if Ruckman's facts are straight on this particular point since the longer reading adds nothing nor takes away anything from the doctrine of the Trinity. 
Is that the only concern for you about the heavenly witnesses?  What if it is integral to John's teaching about the witness of God and the witness of man. And acts as the central focus of the Johannine epistle.  And what if the word of God is mutilated by the removal of the verse. 

Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.


1 John 5:7-8
For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness in earth,
the spirit, and the water, and the blood:
and these three agree in one.


John Wesley Notes on the Bible (1754)
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wesley/notes.i.xxiv.vi.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=W5EgAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA639

.... The seventh verse (usually so reckoned) is a brief recapitulation of all which has been before advanced concerning the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. It is cited, in conjunction with the sixth and eighth, 1 John v, 6, 8 by Tertullian, Cyprian, and an uninterrupted train of Fathers.

And, indeed,
what the sun is in the world,
what the heart is in a man,
what the needle is in the mariner's compass,
this verse is in the epistle.


... St. John could not think of the testimony of the Spirit, and water, and blood, and subjoin, "The testimony of God is greater," without thinking also of the testimony of the Son and Holy Ghost; yea, and mentioning it in so solemn an enumeration.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven
 
Steven Avery said:
Hi,

biscuit1953 said:
I simply want to know if Ruckman's facts are straight on this particular point since the longer reading adds nothing nor takes away anything from the doctrine of the Trinity. 
Is that the only concern for you about the heavenly witnesses?  What if it is integral to John's teaching about the witness of God and the witness of man. And acts as the central focus of the Johannine epistle.  And what if the word of God is mutilated by the removal of the verse. 

Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.


1 John 5:7-8
For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness in earth,
the spirit, and the water, and the blood:
and these three agree in one.


John Wesley Notes on the Bible (1754)
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wesley/notes.i.xxiv.vi.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=W5EgAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA639

.... The seventh verse (usually so reckoned) is a brief recapitulation of all which has been before advanced concerning the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. It is cited, in conjunction with the sixth and eighth, 1 John v, 6, 8 by Tertullian, Cyprian, and an uninterrupted train of Fathers.

And, indeed,
what the sun is in the world,
what the heart is in a man,
what the needle is in the mariner's compass,
this verse is in the epistle.


... St. John could not think of the testimony of the Spirit, and water, and blood, and subjoin, "The testimony of God is greater," without thinking also of the testimony of the Son and Holy Ghost; yea, and mentioning it in so solemn an enumeration.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven
It is so obvious that scripture teaches the Trinity doctrine without the Johannine comma that it is childish to even try to dispute it.  I am still angry at how I was sucked into King James Onlyism as a young Christian in the military and the idea of worshiping a 400 year old translation which I did still makes me cringe.  Having said that, I don't understand why some are so upset that the Johannine comma has been included in the KJV since certainly it doesn't dispute sound doctrine in any way. 

Another example I would point to is Mark 16:9-20.  From what I understand every Greek manuscript available except Sinaiticus and Vaticanus include the ending.  Sometimes I think some people are so opposed to the King James Version to the point that they have become Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Onlyists. 
 
It has been asserted by some that Tertullian quoted the Comma Johanneum others have asserted that Cyprian also quoted it. I would ask anyone that might know where these Latin Fathers quoted it to please advise the publication wherein they read it. Maybe Philip Schaff?
 
Hi,

The Tertullian reference is an allusion with wording that came from the verse. It is in Adversus Praxean.

Roger Pearse discusses it here.


Adversus Praxean (Against Praxeas)
http://www.tertullian.org/works/adversus_praxean.htm

13.  Ch. 25 contains what some have seen as a reference to the disputed verse 1 John 5:7 (possible quote underlined):

    ... Qui tres unum sunt, non unus, quomodo dictum est, Ego et Pater unum sumus, ....

    ("Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another.  These three are one [thing], not one [Person], as it is said, 'I and my Father are One,' in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number.")


Tertullian has a few other references that indicate familiarity with the verse.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 
Steven Avery said:
Hi,

The Tertullian reference is an allusion with wording that came from the verse. It is in Adversus Praxean.

Roger Pearse discusses it here.


Adversus Praxean (Against Praxeas)
http://www.tertullian.org/works/adversus_praxean.htm


13.  Ch. 25 contains what some have seen as a reference to the disputed verse 1 John 5:7 (possible quote underlined):

    ... Qui tres unum sunt, non unus, quomodo dictum est, Ego et Pater unum sumus, ....

    ("Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another.  These three are one [thing], not one [Person], as it is said, 'I and my Father are One,' in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number.")


Tertullian has a few other references that indicate familiarity with the verse.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery


That is the same part of Tertullions writing I thought was in view. I first read his works many years ago when I was learning Latin. IMHO I do not believe he is quoting a Greek source. I think this was a well known formula that was used by the North African Latin speaking Christians as they were big defenders of the Orthodox Christian view of the Trinity. I believe it was most definitely derived from Greek scripture not a translation of Greek Scripture. There may have been strong verbal traditions in play here also. 

While I believe that the Comma has roots that extend back to at least Tertullianus in Latin Christianity it is a hill that is to high to climb to say that it is a part of the autographs of the Greek NT.

The Comma is completely lacking from first millennium Greek Bibles (manuscripts) as a part of the text and is only in a handful of them as a margin note. I believe that is it's proper place, in a margin note.

The Comma is not known in the Greek Church at all in the writings of the Church Fathers. If it had been accepted as scripture they would have quoted it freely, they did not.

My position then would be that Tertullian did not quote the Comma rather the Comma evolved from an early North African Latin Church source. Maybe even Tertullian himself as some say.

IMHO
 
Hi,

bgwilkinson said:
That is the same part of Tertullions writing I thought was in view. I first read his works many years ago when I was learning Latin. IMHO I do not believe he is quoting a Greek source. I think this was a well known formula that was used by the North African Latin speaking Christians as they were big defenders of the Orthodox Christian view of the Trinity.
You are analyzing a bit anachronistically.  You can not find any Latin writers of the 200s who would be considered as giving an "Orthodox Christian view of the Trinity".

Introducing Early Christianity: A Topical Survey of Its Life, Beliefs & Practices (2011)
Laurie Guy
http://books.google.com/books?id=CqJ8A2CSb9EC&pg=PA266
Tertullian, for example, specifically indicated that there was a time when no son existed with God and that therefore God was not always Father.


Your other statements are factually off on some important points, but at least you are thinking about the issue.  Placing Tertullian or Cyprian in the rogues gallery (causing the supposed interpolation) is definitely more sensible than the common idea of an interpolation in the Arian controversies. I'll plan on discussing the Tertullian theory with you a bit more later.

Take a look at the Cyprian citation. 
You will see that the verse really was in his Bible.

Even if you do not accept that, there is a basic question:

1) Did the heavenly witnesses bring forth "three in one" phrasing?
2) Did "three in one" phrasing bring for the heavenly witnesses?

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery


 
Avery, I wonder whether you would be so kind as to provide evidence that you have actually read this book? Every time you cite Google Books as evidence, I can't help but think it was probably an ad hoc search in pursuit of support for your predetermined conclusions.
 
Steven Avery said:
Hi,

bgwilkinson said:
That is the same part of Tertullions writing I thought was in view. I first read his works many years ago when I was learning Latin. IMHO I do not believe he is quoting a Greek source. I think this was a well known formula that was used by the North African Latin speaking Christians as they were big defenders of the Orthodox Christian view of the Trinity.
You are analyzing a bit anachronistically.  You can not find any Latin writers of the 200s who would be considered as giving an "Orthodox Christian view of the Trinity".

Introducing Early Christianity: A Topical Survey of Its Life, Beliefs & Practices (2011)
Laurie Guy
http://books.google.com/books?id=CqJ8A2CSb9EC&pg=PA266
Tertullian, for example, specifically indicated that there was a time when no son existed with God and that therefore God was not always Father.


Your other statements are factually off on some important points, but at least you are thinking about the issue.  Placing Tertullian or Cyprian in the rogues gallery (causing the supposed interpolation) is definitely more sensible than the common idea of an interpolation in the Arian controversies. I'll plan on discussing the Tertullian theory with you a bit more later.

Take a look at the Cyprian citation. 
You will see that the verse really was in his Bible.

Even if you do not accept that, there is a basic question:

1) Did the heavenly witnesses bring forth "three in one" phrasing?
2) Did "three in one" phrasing bring for the heavenly witnesses?

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

IMHO Tertullian as I have read him many years ago, seems to be one of the first sources of dogmatized Trinitarianism. Again this is my opinion from reading his Latin works. I know others have varying opinions and have had for centuries.
This will not be settled unequivocally till we get to heaven and talk to him.
 
Hi,

"Tertullian, for example, specifically indicated that there was a time when no son existed with God and that therefore God was not always Father."


The idea that this is the Tertullian belief is given in a number of sources, usually without much in the way of direct referencing from Tertullian.

The reason I liked the Laurie explanation is that he gives us two primary specific sources to analyze, Against Hermogenes 3, and Against Praxeas 6-7. (emphasis added). Today we can bring those sections here and you can see that Tertullian was far from what you would call an orthodox Trinitarian. (A point in general that I thought was well known, it is good to see some specifics.)


Against Praxeas 6
Then, again, observe the distinction between them implied in the companionship of Wisdom with the Lord. “When He prepared the heaven,” says Wisdom, “I was present with Him; and when He made His strong places upon the winds, which are the clouds above; and when He secured the fountains, (and all things) which are beneath the sky, I was by, arranging all things with Him; I was by, in whom He delighted; and daily, too, did I rejoice in His presence.” Now, as soon as it pleased God to put forth into their respective substances and forms the things which He had planned and ordered within Himself, in conjunction with His Wisdom’s Reason and Word, He first put forth the Word Himself, having within Him His own inseparable Reason and Wisdom, in order that all things might be made through Him through whom they had been planned and disposed, yea, and already made, so far forth as (they were) in the mind and intelligence of God.


Chapter 7 is on the next page, take a look.

As for Hermogenes, there is a lot relevant, I will give one quote that may be the closest match for the Laurie comment.


Against Hermogenes
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0313.htm
http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-37.htm#P8195_2324149

Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father.


And I never claimed to read the whole Laurie book.  Nor is that unusual in quoting sources. The critical point,  I do try to make sure that I have checked and fully understand the context of any quote given. Occasionally over the years I make a mistake (I think you astutely caught one with Burgon and creation-evolution theories) however virtually all of the harumphs on the forums are simply politics and posturing, and my quotes were 100% sound.

Feel free to ask me if I have checked the primary sources, if relevant, and surrounding context on any quote, and the overall argument and positions.  The real issues. 

Even when we have read full books (my home library is decent, my access to local libraries and universities is not bad here) that does not mean that we read every word (even putting aside remembering what we read) of every chapter.  A harumph is often possible.  Exception: A 10 to 50 page web-available article is different, often those are read in toto (often not, depends on the strength of what is written.) Right now, my main direct read is one on the authorship of the books on the Trinity that were often ascribed to Vigilius Tapsensis,  I had to take a little break after p. 50 (it goes a couple hundred). On magazine articles, even the lengthy debates like Nolan-Oxlee, I do tend to read everything.  The energy level there is high.

Case in point, I probably know more about the Westcott-Hort arguments than 98% of the writers today, and have often written specifically about fallacies and errors in their thinking, using their primary source material. Such as how the "neutral text" was not even understood by their proponents.  Have I read every word of the Hort explanations?  Naah, my masochistic quotient is not that high.  After John William Burgon, and people on school assignments, I doubt that more than a couple of people have read that junque book in full.

Even in AV and TR defense material, there are few books that I have read completely, after the one from Daniel Segraves some decades back.  The Floyd Nolan Jones book on the LXX is one.  Maybe Henry Thomas Armfield on the heavenly witnesses. I know and understand Porson-Travis, Nolan, Forster, Burgon and others quite well, and have looked over their books carefully, but that does not mean I would claim to have read them cover to cover. 

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
 
Back
Top