Is it an addition?
The Johannine Comma
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
glorydaz
Well-known member
No, but satan has worked hard to see that it's a subtraction.
:thumb:
HisServant
New member
Doesn't really matter.
1 John 5:7
No Syriac manuscript of any family — Peshito, Philoxenian, or Harklean — has the three witnesses; and their presence in the printed Syriac Gospels is due to translation from the Vulgate.
So too, the Coptic manuscripts — both Sahidic and Bohairic — have no trace of the disputed part, nor have the Ethiopic manuscripts which represent Greek influence through the medium of Coptic.
The Armenian manuscripts, which favour the reading of the Vulgate, are admitted to represent a Latin influence which dates from the twelfth century; early Armenian manuscripts are against the Latin reading.
Of the Itala or Old Latin manuscripts, only two have our present reading of the three witnesses: Codex Monacensis of the sixth or seventh century; and the Speculum, an eighth or ninth century manuscript which gives many quotations from the New Testament.
Even the Vulgate, in the majority of its earliest manuscripts, is without the passage in question. Witnesses to the canonicity are: the Bible of Theodulph (eighth century) in the National Library of Paris; Codex Cavensis (ninth century), the best representative of the Spanish type of text: Toletanus (tenth century); and the majority of Vulgate manuscripts after the twelfth century.
There was some dispute as to the canonicity of the three witnesses as early as the sixth century: for the preface to the Catholic Epistles in Codex Fuldensis (A.D. 541-546) complains about the omission of this passage from some of the Latin versions.
(newadvent.org/ Catholic Encyclopedia/ Epistles of St. John)
No Syriac manuscript of any family — Peshito, Philoxenian, or Harklean — has the three witnesses; and their presence in the printed Syriac Gospels is due to translation from the Vulgate.
So too, the Coptic manuscripts — both Sahidic and Bohairic — have no trace of the disputed part, nor have the Ethiopic manuscripts which represent Greek influence through the medium of Coptic.
The Armenian manuscripts, which favour the reading of the Vulgate, are admitted to represent a Latin influence which dates from the twelfth century; early Armenian manuscripts are against the Latin reading.
Of the Itala or Old Latin manuscripts, only two have our present reading of the three witnesses: Codex Monacensis of the sixth or seventh century; and the Speculum, an eighth or ninth century manuscript which gives many quotations from the New Testament.
Even the Vulgate, in the majority of its earliest manuscripts, is without the passage in question. Witnesses to the canonicity are: the Bible of Theodulph (eighth century) in the National Library of Paris; Codex Cavensis (ninth century), the best representative of the Spanish type of text: Toletanus (tenth century); and the majority of Vulgate manuscripts after the twelfth century.
There was some dispute as to the canonicity of the three witnesses as early as the sixth century: for the preface to the Catholic Epistles in Codex Fuldensis (A.D. 541-546) complains about the omission of this passage from some of the Latin versions.
(newadvent.org/ Catholic Encyclopedia/ Epistles of St. John)
Doesn't matter if there is an addition to scripture?
HisServant
New member
If you are truly saved and have been indwelt by the Holy Spirit, you will be given the discernment needed to understand such things.
To argue about scripture from an academic point of view without his guidance is pretty pointless.
:think::think:
WonderfulLordJesus
New member
Yes, it is an addition if you're a Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, Armstrongite, Christian Scientist, Christadelphian, Oneness Pentecostal, Unificationite (is that a word?), Scientologist, Zeus worshipper or member of a heavy metal rock band. Otherwise, no it's not, or wouldn't be a problem, if it were.
This sort of begs a rather perhaps futile, but interesting question: is there any reason God could not add to His word, during the crafting of the Bible, post first century? If not, why not?
I believe God oversaw the crafting of the canon and seeing His scripture book to fruition, because we must have the reliable word of God, to be held accountable to the truth: there must be a place to find God's absolute truth. Neither would it make sense He would admonish us to learn of Him in an adulterated text, with deceptive potholes. In addition, if some things are error, who then determines what is not error? The imperfect and corruptible creature of the flesh?
You'd have to add to this it would make a lie that all scripture is inspired, if there were nowhere all scripture was put together as a whole and with integrity.
This sort of begs a rather perhaps futile, but interesting question: is there any reason God could not add to His word, during the crafting of the Bible, post first century? If not, why not?
I believe God oversaw the crafting of the canon and seeing His scripture book to fruition, because we must have the reliable word of God, to be held accountable to the truth: there must be a place to find God's absolute truth. Neither would it make sense He would admonish us to learn of Him in an adulterated text, with deceptive potholes. In addition, if some things are error, who then determines what is not error? The imperfect and corruptible creature of the flesh?
You'd have to add to this it would make a lie that all scripture is inspired, if there were nowhere all scripture was put together as a whole and with integrity.
Daniel1769
New member
No. It is not an addition. It is in many old manuscripts and was referenced by some of the earliest Christian writers. The attacks on the Comma, like all attacks on the KJV, are disingenuous.
The primary arguments employed against the authenticity of the Johannine Comma can be roughly summarized into the four following topical areas:
The paucity and lateness of the Greek manuscript witness
The lateness of its appearance in the Latin
Its lacking from all other ancient versions
The lack of use by patristic writers, especially during the "Trinitarian controversies"
The paucity and lateness of the Greek manuscript witness
The lateness of its appearance in the Latin
Its lacking from all other ancient versions
The lack of use by patristic writers, especially during the "Trinitarian controversies"
glorydaz
Well-known member
:thumb:
Daniel1769
New member
Attacks on the Johanine Comma are last ditch effort to end the belief in Biblical inerrancy and infalliability. The people attack the Comma are either disingenuous or ignorant. There are people who do not believe in a preserved, inerrant, infalliable book that contains the words of God in English. That is why they have promoted the so-called "textual criticism" movement, and use Bibles with obvious contradictions like the NIV. They dislike the fact that the KJV is the words of God in English. Likewise, they will criticize the TR and the other old manuscripts as well. They do not want a preserved word of God.
The NT is a testament and cannot be changed by the heirs of the will. Paul says so.
Brethren, I speak in the manner of men: Though it is only a man’s covenant, yet if it is confirmed, no one annuls or adds to it. (Galatians 3:15 NKJV)
glorydaz
Well-known member
Paul is talking about the Abrahamic covenant there....not the Bible as a whole.
This Charming Manc
Well-known member
Sorry,
Its seems that it does look like its an addition. Something that cannot be found all the early text and is not found in history cannot be seen as anything other than an addition.
The doctine of the trinity stands up very well without it, we don't need to grasp at straws to support the doctrine.
The in-errancy of the KJV is a joke of a position in the first place and cannot be defended with or without the comma
Its seems that it does look like its an addition. Something that cannot be found all the early text and is not found in history cannot be seen as anything other than an addition.
The doctine of the trinity stands up very well without it, we don't need to grasp at straws to support the doctrine.
The in-errancy of the KJV is a joke of a position in the first place and cannot be defended with or without the comma
WonderfulLordJesus
New member
Galatians 3 speaks to a covenant not being changed, about Abraham received by faith and that the coming of the law didn't change that. I don't see how you can extrapolate altering the master covenant to adding enlightenment, also asking why God cannot not do whatever He pleases? Is God bound by manuscript to say no more? Surely, man is forbidden to alter scripture of his own accord, but does not God use man to create scripture under the power of the Holy Spirit, this technically man adding scripture? What prohibits God from adding a verse?
WonderfulLordJesus
New member
Absolutely, always a common thread of casting doubt, something the devil also seems so very fond of. Hmm... I bought a NIV a long time ago, when it was being hyped: paid good money for a nice hardcover. Then I read some verse changes that gave me great pause, researched some things about the NIV, and it's in pristine condition to this day, in a box, somewhere around here. I know not where.
