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

1 John 5:7b-8

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

  • 1 John 5:7b-8

    This is a non-debate thread.

    Please do not post any cabala in this thread.

    I specifically request that Geert van den Bos not post in this thread, or in any other thread that I may start.

    The primary purpose of this thread is to present textual commentary published by Bruce M. Metzger and Philip W. Comfort.

    Note to anyone who wishes to take exception to anything presented in this thread: please do so in another thread.

  • #2
    Originally posted by John Reece View Post
    This is a non-debate thread.

    Please do not post any cabala in this thread.

    I specifically request that Geert van den Bos not post in this thread, or in any other thread that I may start.

    The primary purpose of this thread is to present textual commentary published by Bruce M. Metzger and Philip W. Comfort.

    Note to anyone who wishes to take exception to anything presented in this thread: please do so in another thread.
    What about Von Soden?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
      What about Von Soden?
      You are free to post in your thread anything you wish by or about von Soden.

      Please note that you are violating a specific request stated in my OP: Note to anyone who wishes to take exception to anything presented in this thread: please do so in another thread.
      Last edited by John Reece; 03-16-2014, 12:30 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        From New Testament Text and Translation Commentary: Commentary on the variant readings of the ancient New Testament manuscripts and how they relate to the major English translations (Tyndale, 2008), by Philip W. Comfort:
        Westcott & Hort / Nestle-Aland / United Bible Societies
        ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, 8τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν
        "because there are three testifying: 8the Spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are for one [testimony]."
        א AB (Ψ) Maj syr cop arm eth it
        NKJVmg RSV NRSV ESV NASB NIV TNIV NEB NJB NAB NLT HCSB NET

        variant/Textus Receptus
        οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω, ο πατηρ, ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα, και ουτοι οι τρεις ἕν εισιν. 8και τρεις οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη, το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα, και οι τρεις εις το ἕν εισιν
        "because there are three testifying in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8And these are three that testify on earth: the Spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are for one [testimony]."
        (61 629 omit και οι τρεις εις το ἕν εισιν) 88v.r. 221v.r. 429v.r. 636v.r. 918 2318 itlq vgmss Speculum (Priscillian Fulgentious)
        KJV NKJV NRSVmg TNIVmg NJBmg NLTmg HCSBmg

        John never wrote the following words: "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth." This famous passage, called "the heavenly witness" or Comma Johanneum, came from a gloss on 5:8 which explained that the three elements (water, blood, and Spirit) symbolize the Trinity (the Father, the Word [Son], and the Spirit).

        This gloss had a Latin origin (...). The first time this passage appears in the longer form (with the heavenly witness) is in the treatise Liber Apologeticus, written by the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died 385) or his follower Bishop Instantius. Metzger said, "apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of the three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation which may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text" (TCGNT). The gloss showed up in the writings of the Latin fathers in North Africa and Italy (as part of the text of the epistle) from the fifth century onward, and it found its way into more and more copies of the Latin Vulgate. (The original translation of Jerome did not include it.) "The heavenly witnesses" passage has not been found in the text of any Greek manuscript prior to the fourteenth century, and it was never cited by any Greek father. Many of the Greek manuscripts listed above (in support of the variant reading) do not even include the extra verbiage in the text but rather record these words as a "variant reading" (v.r.) in the margin.

        Erasmus did not include "the heavenly witnesses" passage in the first two editions of his Greek New Testament. He was criticized for this by defenders of the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus, in reply, said that he would include it if he could see it in any one Greek manuscript. In turn, a manuscript (most likely the Monfort Manuscript, 61, of the sixteen century) was especially fabricated to contain the passage and thereby fool Erasmus. Erasmus kept his promise; he included it in the third edition. From there it became incorporated into TR and was translated in the KJV. Both KJV and NKJV have popularized this expanded passage. The NKJV translators included it in the text, knowing full well that it has no place there. This is evident in their footnote: "Only four or five very late manuscripts contain these words in Greek." Its inclusion in the text demonstrates their commitment to maintain the KJV heritage.

        Without the intrusive words the text reads: "For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and the three are in agreement" (NIV) It has nothing to do with the Triune God, but with the three critical phases in Jesus' life where he was manifested as God incarnate, the Son of God in human form. This was made evident at his baptism (= the water), his death (= the blood) and his resurrection (= the Spirit). At his baptism, the man Jesus was declared God's beloved Son (see Matt 3:16-17). At his crucifixion, a man spilling blood was recognized by others as "God's Son" (see Mark:15:39). In resurrection, he was designated as the Son of God in power (see Rom 1:3-4). This threefold testimony is unified in one aspect: Each event demonstrated that the man Jesus was the Son of God.

        Comment


        • #5
          Via Accordance, from A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament), by Bruce M. Metzger:
          5.7–8 μαρτυροῦντες, 8 τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα {A}

          After μαρτυροῦντες the Textus Receptus adds the following: ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἄγιον Πνεῦμα. καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. (8) καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ. That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain in the light of the following considerations.

          (A) External Evidence. (1) The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript. The eight manuscripts are as follows:
          61: codex Montfortianus, dating from the early sixteenth century.
          88v.r.: a variant reading in a sixteenth century hand, added to the fourteenth–century codex Regius of Naples.
          221v.r.: a variant reading added to a tenth–century manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
          429v.r.: a variant reading added to a sixteenth–century manuscript at Wolfenbüttel.
          636v.r.: a variant reading added to a sixteenth–century manuscript at Naples.
          918: a sixteenth–century manuscript at the Escorial, Spain.
          2318: an eighteenth–century manuscript, influenced by the Clementine Vulgate, at Bucharest, Rumania.

          (2) The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.
          (3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied a.d. 541–46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before a.d. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).
          The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text. In the fifth century the gloss was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy as part of the text of the Epistle, and from the sixth century onwards it is found more and more frequently in manuscripts of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate. In these various witnesses the wording of the passage differs in several particulars. (For examples of other intrusions into the Latin text of 1John, see 2.17; 4.3; 5.6, and 20.)

          (B) Internal Probabilities. (1) As regards transcriptional probability, if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.
          (2) As regards intrinsic probability, the passage makes an awkward break in the sense.
          Last edited by John Reece; 03-17-2014, 01:04 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            I've always explained this to my students as a marginal note that somehow, over time and numerous copying, crept into the text.

            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