Announcement

Collapse

Biblical Languages 301 Guidelines

This is where we come to delve into the biblical text. Theology is not our foremost thought, but we realize it is something that will be dealt with in nearly every conversation. Feel free to use the original languages to make your point (meaning Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). This is an exegetical discussion area, so please limit topics to purely biblical ones.

This is not the section for debates between theists and atheists. While a theistic viewpoint is not required for discussion in this area, discussion does presuppose a respect for the integrity of the Biblical text (or the willingness to accept such a presupposition for discussion purposes) and a respect for the integrity of the faith of others and a lack of an agenda to undermine the faith of others.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The real 1st John 5:7

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The real 1st John 5:7

    εν ουρανῳ πατηρ λογος και πνευμα αγιον instead of how it is commonly in the CP and TR.

    This is how it is in all ancient copies for the most part; the complutensian polyglot and textus receptus have their version. The verse has 3 extra articles in the TR version. And 1 kai is added to the CP version. It is quite possible the TR version makes it hard to find 1 John manuscripts which have the 5th chapter, of which there aren't many.
    Last edited by Omniskeptical; 03-16-2014, 04:33 PM.

  • #2
    A general breakdown of versions

    ο πατηρ και ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα (Complutensian Polyglot)
    ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα (average Textus Receptus)
    πατηρ λογος και πνευμα αγιον (the original greek)(see also Von Soden's apparatus)

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
      A general breakdown of versions

      ο πατηρ και ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα (Complutensian Polyglot)
      ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα (average Textus Receptus)
      πατηρ λογος και πνευμα αγιον (the original greek)(see also Von Soden's apparatus)
      Your three versions do not actually include the very well attested standard critical text:

      6 οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐλθὼν δι᾽ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος, Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ ἐν τῷ αἵματι· καὶ τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν τὸ μαρτυροῦν, ὅτι τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν ἡ ἀλήθεια. 7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, 8 τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.


      Be very careful about using von Soden's critical apparatus; it is notoriously difficult to decipher. It provides very little support for what you are considering "the original Greek", and while a little additional (but also very late) support has been found since his critical apparatus appeared, extremely few people would ever seriously argue for inclusion of any form of the Johannine comma.
      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by robrecht View Post
        Your three versions do not actually include the very well attested standard critical text:

        6 οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐλθὼν δι᾽ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος, Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ ἐν τῷ αἵματι· καὶ τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν τὸ μαρτυροῦν, ὅτι τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν ἡ ἀλήθεια. 7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, 8 τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.


        Be very careful about using von Soden's critical apparatus; it is notoriously difficult to decipher. It provides very little support for what you are considering "the original Greek", and while a little additional (but also very late) support has been found since his critical apparatus appeared, extremely few people would ever seriously argue for inclusion of any form of the Johannine comma.
        There are about 250 manuscripts which could have it; but I don't believe all of them have been checked well either. And if one is searching for the Textus Receptus version of the verse; it makes the discovery of inclusion all the more difficult. Verses 6-8 through have always been poorly copied. The wikipedia article is very interesting, and so is Daniel Wallace's conclusion that the TR version is not the original. On Von Soden, the verse is copied correctly, though the evidence is not well-cited.

        Should I state the crumbs of evidence for it not related to Von Soden?
        Last edited by Omniskeptical; 03-16-2014, 02:28 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
          There are about 250 manuscripts which could have it; but I don't believe all of them have been checked well either. And if one is searching for the Textus Receptus version of the verse; it makes the discovery of inclusion all the more difficult. Verses 6-8 through have always been poorly copied. The wikipedia article is very interesting, and so is Daniel Wallace's conclusion that the TR version is not the original. On Von Soden, the verse is copied correctly, though the evidence is not well-cited.

          Should I state the crumbs of evidence for it no related to Von Soden?
          Personally, I would not bother as I think this would be a fool's errand. You cannot appeal to manuscripts that have not yet been checked, and even if or when they are all checked they would all be extremely late dependent witnesses of no real value. There's a reason why no one has bothered to check them. Note that some of those already cited actually post-date the TR and the earlier (still extremely late) witnesses have the words as part of a scribal gloss in the margin.
          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by robrecht View Post
            Personally, I would not bother as I think this would be a fool's errand. You cannot appeal to manuscripts that have not yet been checked, and even if or when they are all checked they would all be extremely late dependent witnesses of no real value. There's a reason why no one has bothered to check them. Note that some of those already cited actually post-date the TR and the earlier (still extremely late) witnesses have the words as part of a scribal gloss in the margin.
            The fact that is a gloss implies copyists were making a mistake by not including, in my not so humble opinion. The verse is not trinitarian at all. Only the Complutensian Polyglot version is. So the bias of scholars baffles me there as well.

            The one's which have it in gloss are slightly earlier than the TR.

            Comment


            • #7
              Your three versions do not actually include the very well attested standard critical text:
              I didn't quote the critical text.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
                I didn't quote the critical text.
                Precisely my point. Why would you leave that out?
                βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                  Precisely my point. Why would you leave that out?
                  Many people find it poorly collated, and frankly moderated.
                  Last edited by KingsGambit; 03-18-2014, 11:35 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
                    The fact that is a gloss implies copyists were making a mistake by not including, in my not so humble opinion. The verse is not trinitarian at all. Only the Complutensian Polyglot version is. So the bias of scholars baffles me there as well.

                    The one's which have it in gloss are slightly earlier than the TR.
                    No, glosses are not necessarily added as corrections, and even when they are, they are not necessarily good corrections and can be added quite a bit later than the manuscript. At least three of the marginal notes are found in 16th century manuscripts, ie, quite possibly after the TR. In my opinion, it would be a waste of my time to check these manuscripts so I'll just cite these webpages. If you want to use them, you should check their texts:

                    61: codex Montfortianus, dating from the early sixteenth century.
                    88: a variant reading in a sixteenth century hand, added to the fourteenth-century codex Regius of Naples.
                    221: a variant reading added to a tenth-century manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
                    429: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Wolfenbüttel.
                    629: a fourteenth or fifteenth century manuscript in the Vatican.
                    635: 11th century marginal note
                    636: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Naples.
                    918: a sixteenth-century manuscript at the Escorial, Spain.
                    1739: 10th century with marginal note
                    2318: an eighteenth-century manuscript, influenced by the Clementine Vulgate, at Bucharest, Rumania.

                    http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html
                    http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleve.../1john5n7.html (argues for the Johannine comma)
                    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
                      Many people find it poorly collated, and frankly moderated.
                      Don't trust those people. Textual apparati are notoriously hard to guarantee 100% accuracy, but the critical apparatus of the current critical text has been in the process of being corrected for some time now. But I was speaking of the critical text, not any one particular textual apparatus. It is just plain foolish to engage in a text critical discussion while ignoring the critical texts. Why would you want to do that?
                      Last edited by KingsGambit; 03-18-2014, 11:49 AM.
                      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        It wouldn't by such a big deal, but Stephan is the first witness to ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα (average Textus Receptus). Erasmus copied it like Von Soden, and like in typical glosses, 629 (which contains an interesting error), etc. It is too coincidental. And the whole phrase suggests the father is the word YHWH, and not the son. Heresy? The copiers might think so, and stumble.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                          Don't trust those people. Textual apparati are notoriously hard to guarantee 100% accuracy, but the critical apparatus of the current critical text has been in the process of being corrected for some time now. But I was speaking of the critical text, not any one particular textual apparatus. It is just plain foolish to engage in a text critical discussion while ignoring the critical texts. Why would you want to do that?
                          I use Majority Text both Hodges and farstad; and RP; pickering's version, and I wish I knew Von Soden better. The "Alexandrian" text has been questioned by good authorities-- it's hard to believe.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
                            I use Majority Text, pickering's version, and I wish I knew Von Soden better. The "Alexandrian" text has been questioned by good authorities-- it's hard to believe.
                            Text criticism is not a matter of faith (hard to believe), but good arguments. How can you argue against the critical text without even including it in the discussion?
                            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Because most of the oldest codexes are poor copies of the majority of manuscripts. Pamphilius has his name on one. Pamphilius is either the scribe of Eusebius or Eusebius himself. Older is not always better.

                              There are people such as Hoskier, Burgeon, and Scrivener who were not convinced by Westscott and Hort.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by DesertBerean, 11-02-2020, 02:57 PM
                              4 responses
                              39 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post DesertBerean  
                              Working...
                              X