Today, it is widely acknowledged that 1 John 5:7 is a spurious text (an interpolation): even Catholic scholars admit that the passage was added later to the NT text. It seems that the so-called Comma Johanneum was a theologically motivated corruption that entered the GNT in light of the early Arian controversies, but some refer to the corruption euphemistically as a "gloss." However, "textual corruption" fits the case better.
A discussion as to how the Papal Office shifted positions on the interpolation can be found here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1964207
Other sources attest to the shift that occurred by Rome, which I will adduce upon request. For now, please note the comparison of texts below:
Catholic Douay-Rheims: "And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one."
Catholic NABRE: "So there are three that testify, 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord."
Nova Vulgata: Quia tres sunt, qui testificantur:
Compare the Nova Vulgata with the older Biblia Vulgata.
Sunday, July 30, 2023
1 John 5:7 in the Douay-Rheims, NABRE, and Nova Vulgata
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
Do you happen to have a few citaions for this?
Also would this make the textus receptus not as reliable as some claim?
For a quick reference, see the WT link I included and see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2014/04/comma-johanneum-1-john-57.html?m=1
Compare http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-greek-manuscripts-of-comma.html?m=1
There are many reasons not to trust the TR
From Herman Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics, volume 2:271ff. He's talking about 1 John 5:7:
"The text certainly occurs in the work of Vigilius toward the end of the fifth century. In the sixteenth century it was included in the Complutensian edition of the Greek New Testament, by Erasmus in his third edition, by Stephanus and Beza, and in the Textus Receptus. It is not definitely required by the context, and its omission and disappearance is very hard to explain. There are still some scholars who defined the passage as genuine,27 and in 1897 the question whether 1 John 5:7 could be safely rejected or at least omitted as being doubtful was answered in the negative by the Congregation of the Holy Office at Rome, a decision later ratified by the
pope. It seems, however, that this verdict of the Holy Office did not really settle the question of the authenticity of 1 John 5:7 or was later tacitly repealed. At any rate, numerous Catholic scholars after that time still upheld the inauthenticity of 1 John 5:7 with a plethora of arguments. Künstle, for example, opposing the authenticity of the text states that it derived from a sentence in an apology of Priscillian dating from the year 380."
As I've also shown, the Nova Vulgata omits the Comma Johanneum.
Its interesting Daniel Wallace also omits this text as a later addition - any correlation in time with the catholic councels?
I come to the conclusion - yes, but seeking a second opinion
Unknown, just want to make sure I understand your question. Are you asking what affected Wallace's view? Thanks.
I blew my mind when I found out there were King James onlyists/TR onlyists ... I don't know why I found that shocking, but I did.
sorry Im not very clear
"Its interesting Daniel Wallace also omits this text as a later addition" - is a statement not a question
"any correlation in time with the catholic councels?" - is my question, as in the addition of 1 John 5:7. Is their any time correlations between them?
I can imagine it being added to boost the trinitarian interpretation
Here's one answer to your question, Unknown. https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2015/06/fc-conybeare-on-1-john-57-johannine.html
The "comma Iohanneum" is not an evil trinitarian Bible forgery, but probably a homily of Cyprian writtne into the margin of the Vulgate, probably in 7th century Spain. The monk who copied the text probably inserted it into the main text because he thought it belonged there.
At that time, the Arian controversy had already been a closed matter for centuries, the Church did not need any additional arguments in this regard. Since philology did not exist (there was no need for it), it slipped into the text. But when textual criticism settled the question, the Catholic Church removed it.
Of course, there are also more conservative positions, see https://justpaste.it/au58r
Dear Nincsnevem,
I'm almost done with our back and forth, but I just had to say that the Comma entered the NT as interpolation well before the 7th century and with no basis.
See the quote that I posted from Bavinck and read Raymond E. Brown's commentary on the Johannine epistles. See Robert M. Grant's Gods and the One God and I've got plenty of other sources.
The Comma is just one instance of Trinitarian corruptions.
Dear Mr. Foster,
it cannot be considered a "Trinitarian corruption" since it slipped into the text when the Arian controversy was long over. During the Arian debates, when it might have been "needed", no one referred to it. And if you look, with this much power there was also an "anti-trinitarian" corruption, in John 1:18 in the Vulgate "unigenitus Filius", while the older version is "monogenes Theos". It is certain that the "comma Iohanneum" is not Jerome's work, which is why it is not only not in the nova Vulgate, but also in the Weber-Gryson Vulgate. This part is not included in the 6th century Codex Fuldensis either, so it definitely slipped into the text after that, I emphasize not for theological interest.
I share you a fun fact: The Arians of the 4th century interpreted John 1:1c by putting a full stop after «God was», and "the Word" was placed as the beginning of sence in the next verse.
See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2015/04/pages-776-777-of-re-browns-commentary.html?m=1
Another fun fact: Here is the original Hebrew of Deuteronomy 32:43 was restored on the basis of the Dead Sea scrolls, from where Hebrews 1:6 is quoted, this was falsified by the Masoretic Jews, they erased parts of the text, especially the first half, in order not to find out where the apostle is quoting from:
Hebrew: הַרְנִינוּ שָּׁמָיִם עַמּוֹ וְיִשְׁתַּחווּ לוֹ כָּל מַלְאֲכֵי אֱלֹהִים הַרְנִינוּ גֹיִם עַמּוֹ וַיְחַזְקוּ לוֹ כָּל בְּנֵי אֱלָהִים וְכָשָׂ ְאָיו יְשַּׁלֵּם וַיְכַפֵּר אדְמַת עַמּוֹ
Transliterated: Harnînû šāmāyim ʿammô weyištaḥăwû lô kol malʾăk̲ê ʾĕlōhîm harnînû g̲ôyim ʿammô wayḥazqû lô kol bənê ʾĕlōhîm kî d̲am-b̲ānāyw yiqqôm wənāqām yāšîb̲ ləṣārāyw wəlimśanʾāyw yəšallēm wayk̲appēr ʾadmat̲ ʿammô
LXX: εὐφράνθητε, οὐρανοί, ἅμα αὐτῷ, καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες υἱοὶ θεοῦ· εὐφράνθητε, ἔθνη, μετὰ τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐνισχυσάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι θεοῦ· ὅτι τὸ αἷμα τῶν υἱῶν αὐτοῦ ἐκδικὶται. ἀνταποδώσεις, καὶ ἐκκαθαριεῖ κύριος τὴν γῆν τοῦ λαοῦ αὐτοῦ.
LXX transliterated: euphránthēte, ouranoí, háma autō̃ͅ, kaì proskunēsátōsan autō̃ͅ pantes huioì theoũ; euphránthēte, éthnē, metà toũ laoũ autoũ, kaì eniskhusátōsan autō̃ͅ pantes ángeloi theoũ; hóti tò haĩma tō̃n huiō̃n autoũ ekdikãtai, kaì ekdikḗsei kaì antapodṓsei díkēn toĩs ekhthroĩs kaì toĩs misoũsin antapodṓsei, kaì ekkatharieĩ kúrios tḕn gē̃n toũ laoũ autoũ.
English: Rejoice, O heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him. Rejoice, O nations, with his people, and let all the children of God strengthen themselves in him. For he will avenge the blood of his children, and he will render vengeance to his enemies, and he will reward them that hate him, and he atones for the land of his people.
In the Hebrew text, the equivalent of "to worship" is the word וְיִשְׁתַּחֲווּ [weyištaḥăwû]. This word comes from the Hebrew verb "שָׁחָה" (Šāḥāh, ʃaːˈχaːh) which means "to worship", it also appears in Exodus 20:5 "You shall not worship them nor serve them".
Dear Nincsnevem, I would hardly call unigenitus filius an antitrinitarian corruption. Good you used quotation marks for that one.
Here's another thing to consider: the Arian controversy did not end in 325 CE.
I know, but from the 4-5. century, this issue was completely closed in the central regions of the Roman Empire. In Spain, the Visigoths were Arians, but even at the Third Council of Toledo it did not arise that anyone would have referred to the Comma.
So I don't think the Comma was inserted on purpose at all, but a copyist monk inserted it from the margin because he thought it was part of the text. Then it was copied from this copy.
There is no sign that any ecclesiastical authority ever - despite their better knowledge - forced this into the text for theological reasons.
Dear Nincsnevem,
Are you familiar with Erasmus and the Comma?
I've been working on a Deuteronomy 32:43 post. Might submit this week and I want to finish my Merkle posts.
http://dssenglishbible.com/deuteronomy%2032.htm
https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/manuscript/4Q44-1?locale=en_US
"The LXX Deut is often described as a fairly literal rendering of the Hebrew (Perkins 2015).
Therefore, its many deviations from the MT and Sam are likely to reflect variant readings. These include a partial reversal of the order of the Ten Commandments (5:17-18), the substantially longer wording in Deut 6:4 (as in Papyrus Nash); 23:18; 26:9-10; 32:43, and a multitude of harmonizations (Tov 2008: 271-82)."
"There is not a single complete scroll of Deut in this list. In fact, very few are well preserved (e.g., 4QDeutc). Still, fragmentary as they are, these scrolls yield a rich trove of readings (Ulrich 2010: 175-246). Most of these have been long known from the MT, LXX, and Sam. One example is the well-known reading “sons of God” of Deut 32:8 in 4QDeutj (cf. LXX; Himbaza 2002). The MT and Sam have here “sons of Israel.” Others, such as the equally often cited six-colae wording of Deut 32:43 in 4QDeutq (cf. the four cola of the MT and the eight of the LXX; Rofé 2002: 47-554), are unique. To evaluate the contribution of these readings, a few words should be said about the previously available MT, Sam, and LXX of Deut.
In attempt to identify discrete features of the MT Deut, scholars point to a few readings suggesting a theologically motivated revision thereof (Hendel 2016: 204-206). The reading “Ebal” in MT Deut 27:4, instead of “Gerizim” of the Old Greek (as evidenced by the Old Latin) and Sam, may imply an anti-Samaritan polemic. At the same time, MT Deut 32:8 and 43 seem to reflect an anti-polytheistic stance. In v. 8 the aforementioned original “sons of God” (4QDeutj; LXX) is replaced with “sons of Israel,” whereas v. 43 omits the reference to the “sons of God” and substitutes “nations” for “heaven” (LXX; 4QDeuta). On a larger scale, while the MT, Sam, and LXX Deut contain multiple harmonizations, the MT Deut appears to be the least harmonized of the three (Tov 2008: 271-82).
A well-known feature of Sam is the transposition of parallel passages from Deut back into Exodus and Numbers (Kartveit 2009: 310-12). However, as far as Deut itself is concerned, there are only few instances of this textual phenomenon (Deut 2:7; 10:6-7; 14). Sam Deut also contains many harmonizations, more than the MT Sam, but less than LXX Deut (Tov 2008: 271-82). While all these appear to have originated in a Jewish text of Deut adopted by the Samaritan community, a few others are commonly believed to reflect a Samaritan sectarian worldview. Thus, an additional commandment in the Decalogue (Sam Deut 5:18) stipulates an establishment of worship on Mt. Gerizim. Also, unlike the MT and LXX, featuring the recurring phrase “the place that God will choose,” Sam Deut consistently reads “the place that God has chosen.” Finally, Sam Deut 27:4 has “Gerizim,” whereas the MT and the majority of LXX manuscripts read Ebal. Recently, several studies challenged the attribution of the two latter readings to the “Samaritan layer” of Sam and argued that they are original to Deut (Schenker 2008; Schorch 2011). The LXX Deut is often described as a fairly literal rendering of the Hebrew (Perkins 2015). Therefore, its many deviations from the MT and Sam are likely to reflect variant readings. These include a partial reversal of the order of the Ten Commandments (5:17-18), the substantially longer wording in Deut 6:4 (as in Papyrus Nash); 23:18; 26:9-10; 32:43, and a multitude of harmonizations (Tov 2008: 271-82). "
https://bible.org/article/comma-johanneum-and-cyprian
THE JOHANNINE COMMA (1 JOHN 5:7–8): THE STATUS OF ITS TEXTUAL HISTORY AND THEOLOGICAL USAGE IN ENGLISH, GREEK, AND LATIN
https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3617&context=auss
Nincsnevem, One can only estimate the origin of the comma from the available manuscript data, The original reasons for its existence can only be speculated, however, what about the report - "The books of Arius and his followers, after the first Council of Nicaea (325 C.E.), were burned for heresy by the Roman emperors Constantine, Honorius, and Theodosius I, who published a decree commanding that, "the doctrine of the Trinity should be embraced by those who would be called catholics"
This is not from JW liturature.
Duncan
Arius was not "burned" by anyone for heresy, you can read this on Wikipedia. On the contrary, the Roman emperors supported the Arian faction for decades after the Council of Nicaea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius#Exile,_return,_and_death
Another perspective: https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2017/05/yet-more-evidence-against-johannine.html
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2015/01/comma-johanneum-and-erasmus-cambridge.html
I can only repeat the quote - "The >>books of Arius<< and his followers, after the first Council of Nicaea (325 C.E.), were burned for heresy"
So I do not think it is saying that Arius himself was burned, but it could mean that documentation we have today is a one sided history.
Arius was poisoned :Though he never repudiated the council or its decrees, the emperor ultimately permitted Arius (who had taken refuge in Palestine) and many of his adherents to return to their homes, once Arius had reformulated his Christology to mute the ideas found most objectionable by his critics. Athanasius was exiled following his condemnation by the First Synod of Tyre in 335 (though he was later recalled), and the Synod of Jerusalem the following year restored Arius to communion. The emperor directed Alexander of Constantinople to receive Arius, despite the bishop's objections; Bishop Alexander responded by earnestly praying that Arius might perish before this could happen.[59]
Modern scholars consider that the subsequent death of Arius may have been the result of poisoning by his opponents.[60][61] In contrast, some contemporaries of Arius asserted that the circumstances of his death were a miraculous consequence of Arius's heretical views. The latter view was evident in the account of Arius's death by a bitter enemy, Socrates Scholasticus:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius#Exile,_return,_and_death
Yep, that was true, the other side wasn't better either, Athanasius was persecuted a lot during his lifetime:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_of_Alexandria#First_exile
There is also the modern view that Arius, actually never claimed that the Logos were a creature, but, on the contrary, the Creator of all creatures.
Post a Comment