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

  • #31
    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
    Since the Johannine comma is only included in about 10 very, very late manuscripts, the Majority Text also does not include the Johannine comma.
    Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
    Actually it is about 400 manuscripts; but if you want to be real particular, the majority of manuscripts don't contain 1st John. And about half of them, that contain it, don't have the 5th chapter. And I doubt all 240 manuscripts which should have it, were checked. Not everybody has the money to buy facsmiles, and if they aren't collated, it is like a needle in a haystack.
    With regard to the Comma Johanneum, the only count of manuscripts that is relevant is the number of manuscripts that have been found to contain it. robrecht has already listed 8 of the following plus one that has the CJ only as a marginal addition:

    From an excursus on the Comma Johanneum in The Johannine Letters (Hermeneia: Fortress Press, 1996), by Georg Strecker:
    The following minuscules contain the Comma Johannine:
    Gregory 61 Codex Montfortianus, early 16h century
    Gregory 629 Codex Vaticanus Ottobonianus, 14th/15th century or later
    Gregory 918 Spanish 16th century manuscript (Escorial)
    Gregory 2318 Rumanian 18th-century manuscript (Bucharest)
    Gregory 88vl Later marginal note, 16th century, in Codex Regius (12th century), Naples
    Gregory 221vl Addition to a 10th-century manuscript, Oxford.
    Gregory 429vl Addition to a 16th-century manuscript, Wolfenbüttel
    Gregory 636vl Addition to a 15th-century manuscript, Naples
    Codex Ravianus sive Berolinensis (16th century), a copy of the Complutensian printing, should simply be mentioned here.

    According to Strecker, "On the basis of this weak attestation, it is probable that the Comma Johanneum was never included in an older Greek text."

    Furthermore, with regard to Latin Manuscripts, according to Strecker:
    The Comma Johanneum is also absent from the manuscripts of the Vetus Latina before 600 and the Vulgate before 750: a stronger Latin attestation is found beginning only with the ninth century. But even then, until the end of the millennium, the Comma Johanneum appears only in Spanish or Spanish-influenced texts. The most important witnesses are:
    a palimpsest from Léon, 7th century
    the Freising (q or r), 7th century
    Codex Cavensis, 9th century
    Codex Complutensis, 10th century
    Codex Toletanus, 10th century
    Codex Theodulphianus, 8th/9th century (Franco-Spanish)
    a few St. Gallen manuscripts, 8th/9th century

    With regard to other manuscripts, says Strecker:
    The Comma Johanneum is absent from all Coptic, Ethiopian, Arabic, and Slavic translations up to 1500. It entered a few late Syrian manuscripts by way of the Vulgate. In the first editions of the Syriac NT by Widmanstadt (1555) it was not accepted, but in the edition of 1569, edited by Tremellius, it appears as a marginal note. In the following century it was included in the text, owing to the impression that it had originally been part of it and had been excised by the Arians. The Comma Johanneum is also found in a few late Armenian witnesses and in the Armenian edition of Oskan (1662), which originated after the Vulgate.
    Last edited by John Reece; 03-18-2014, 10:00 AM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Since no one has completely varified Von Soden's work; There are at least 300 facsimiles which should be checked, since the original form of the verse is πατηρ λογος, pater logos and not ο πατηρ ο λογος, o pater o logos. I found this rumor to be backed up with photos. Notice the phrase never separates the father and the word in the Greek. It blows a big hole in the trinity doctrine where the son is λογος, logos.
      Last edited by Omniskeptical; 03-18-2014, 12:52 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
        Since no one has completely varified Von Soden's work; There are at least 300 facsimiles which should be checked, since the original form of the verse is πατηρ λογος, pater logos and not ο πατηρ ο λογος, o pater o logos. I found this rumor to be backed up with photos. Notice the phrase never separates the father and the word in the Greek. It blows a big hole in the trinity doctrine where the son is λογος, logos.
        Well, now we know why you're pushing this so hard. Too bad for you that the "original" you're pushing doesn't show up until centuries (if not a millennium) after the Trinity doctrine was more or less universally accepted.
        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
        sigpic
        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
          It blows a big hole in the trinity doctrine where the son is λογος, logos.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
            Since no one has completely varified Von Soden's work; There are at least 300 facsimiles which should be checked, since the original form of the verse is πατηρ λογος, pater logos and not ο πατηρ ο λογος, o pater o logos. I found this rumor to be backed up with photos. Notice the phrase never separates the father and the word in the Greek. It blows a big hole in the trinity doctrine where the son is λογος, logos.
            Questions:

            1) "Since no one has completely varified Von Soden's work" .... what?

            2) What is the meaning of "varified"?

            3) von Soden I know, but who is Von Soden?

            4) "the original form of the verse is πατηρ λογος, pater logos and not ο πατηρ ο λογος, o pater o logos" ... the original form of what verse?

            5) Where do you find "the original form" of the verse to which you have referred in 4) above?

            The original form of the "Johannine comma" is Latin, not Greek, as documented by Strecker (op cit):
            7 Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant
            in caelo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus,
            et hi très unum sunt.
            8 Et très sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra:
            Spiritus et aqua et sanguis,
            et hi tres unum sunt.

            6) Where in the original form ― i.e. Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus / Father, Word, and Holy Spirit, do you find justification for your concluding assertion above: "Notice the phrase never separates the father and the word in the Greek. It blows a big hole in the trinity doctrine where the son is λογος, logos."
            Last edited by John Reece; 03-18-2014, 02:01 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
              Well, now we know why you're pushing this so hard. Too bad for you that the "original" you're pushing doesn't show up until centuries (if not a millennium) after the Trinity doctrine was more or less universally accepted.
              Yes, evidently you don't.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by John Reece View Post
                Questions:

                1) "Since no one has completely varified Von Soden's work" .... what?
                Verified. sorry

                (3) von Soden I know, but who is Von Soden?
                Soden. Is von Soden more correct?

                4) "the original form of the verse is πατηρ λογος, pater logos and not ο πατηρ ο λογος, o pater o logos" ... the original form of what verse?
                1 John 5:7 was originally πατηρ λογος in a specific spot.

                The original form of the "Johannine comma" is Latin, not Greek, as documented by Strecker (op. cit.):
                7 Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant
                in caelo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus,
                et hi très unum sunt.
                8 Et très sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra:
                Spiritus et aqua et sanguis,
                et hi tres unum sunt.

                6) Where in the original form ― i.e. Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus / Father, Word, and Holy Spirit, do you find justification for your concluding assertion above: "Notice the phrase never separates the father and the word in the Greek. It blows a big hole in the trinity doctrine where the son is λογος, logos."[/QUOTE]There no kai or et separating father and word. So the Father and the word whatever word it is are the same. The father the word is the name YHWH. And since the Latin verse is very different from the Greek, one could also say the Latin is derived from the Greek. They aren't straight copies of each other.
                Last edited by Omniskeptical; 03-18-2014, 01:55 PM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Let us consider 1 John 1:1-3:

                  That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life— the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us— that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.
                  At the beginning of the epistle the Word is identified with the Son.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                    Let us consider 1 John 1:1-3:



                    At the beginning of the epistle the Word is identified with the Son.
                    Gee, how is a word of a life identified with his son. I know one can easily misrender John 1:1-2 as the son, which in reality refers to the Father.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
                      Gee, how is a word of a life identified with his son. I know one can easily misrender John 1:1-2 as the son, which in reality refers to the Father.
                      πρὸς τὸν πατέρα - with the Father, and thus not the Father.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                        πρὸς τὸν πατέρα - with the Father, and thus not the Father.
                        And a word, it was with a god, and the God, it was a word the same; it was at the beginning with a god.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
                          Soden. Is von Soden more correct?
                          Not only more correct, but the only correct spelling for the German surname "von Soden"; "Von" is not the first name of Herr von Soden.

                          Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
                          1 John 5:7 was originally πατηρ λογος in a specific spot.
                          In what specific spot, it terms of an "original" dated manuscript?

                          The original form of the "Johannine comma" is Latin, not Greek, as documented by Strecker (op. cit.):

                          Originally posted by John Reece quoting Strecker, op cit
                          7 Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant
                          in caelo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus,
                          et hi très unum sunt.
                          8 Et très sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra:
                          Spiritus et aqua et sanguis,
                          et hi tres unum sunt.

                          6) Where in the original form ― i.e. Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus / Father, Word, and Holy Spirit, do you find justification for your concluding assertion above: "Notice the phrase never separates the father and the word in the Greek. It blows a big hole in the trinity doctrine where the son is λογος, logos."
                          Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
                          There no kai or et separating father and word. So the Father and the word whatever word it is are the same.
                          So, if I were to say that the names of three of the disciples of Jesus are Peter, James, and John, that means that Peter and James are the same person?

                          Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
                          The father the word is the name YHWH.
                          Certainly not in either Greek or Latin. With regard to Hebrew, the name YHWH is not Hebrew for either Father or word.
                          Last edited by John Reece; 03-19-2014, 07:26 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            The word John emphasizes is God's name. But there are several words/wordages in the greek language.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              But "At the beginning, it was a word." It is anti-Heraclitus.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
                                And a word, it was with a god, and the God, it was a word the same; it was at the beginning with a god.
                                So are we agreed that as in John's Gospel, the Father and the Logos are distinguished in 1 John 1?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Quantum Weirdness, 08-29-2021, 04:29 PM
                                6 responses
                                108 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Christian3, 09-09-2017, 10:08 AM
                                369 responses
                                50,176 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X