ECT If the Johannine Comma is unbiblical ....

[Bright Raven]

Why is it in the biblical text

1 John 5:7 King James Version (KJV)

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

 

[Bright Raven]

No dissenters? Guess most believe the comma to be biblical.

 

[Cruciform]

No dissenters? Guess most believe the comma to be biblical.

I certainly do, since the one historical Christian Church that authoritatively defined the biblical canon in the 4th century---that is, the Catholic Church---included it as an inspired part of the New Testament.

 

[Traditio]

I don't understand the significance of the question. Which comma, and what does it matter?

 

[Bradley D]

Why is it in the biblical text

1 John 5:7 King James Version (KJV)

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

I do not believe we will truly understand this in this life. The Nicene creed speaks of "being one substance with the Father." The Word, whom John wrote of being Jesus, born of the Virgin Mary made pregnant by the Spirit, is whom God the Father spoke the gospel through. The Holy Ghost sent to us by both the Father and the Son is also of the substance of God. This is what is called the Trinity. Some people argue that this constitutes three gods. However, that goes against the first commandment of there being only one God. Have not seen anything that explains it to my satisfaction yet.

 

[Cruciform]

I don't understand the significance of the question. Which comma, and what does it matter?

"Johannine Comma"​

 

[Traditio]

"Johannine Comma"​

Curses, Cruciform, why do you insist on posting links that directly answer the question(s) at hand, i.e., which have all of the relevant information which has been requested?

It's so anti-dialogue! I should report your posting this very instant

 

[Traditio]

At any rate, a more serious answer to the OP:

Apparently, what is at stake is whether or not a set of words is to be understood as belonging to the canonical text of St. John's first epistle, and this has apparently trinitarian import. In the link that Cruciform cited, there is a discussion of whether or not the early Church fathers even quoted this particular text, and it seems (based on my skimming the article) that they may not have, even in the context of trinitarian discussion.

In answer to the question of the OP, "if it is not divinely inspired and an authoritative part of the Bible, then why is it in there," here, I think, the answer of the Muslims, of the Manicheans, and even of the Protestants themselves (when they are speaking of the deuterocanonical works of Catholic Bibles) easily could be given: "It was an interpolation!"

And I think that Bright Raven would have no answer, nor would any protestant. It seems as though he basically has two options:

1. He must accept on blind faith that the text of the Bible as he has it is the correct version. [This seems unreasonable, however; moreover, it certainly won't convince someone who disagrees.]

2. He must be open to historical evidence that some parts of the Bible may have been interpolated. He must suspend judgment altogether about whether or not his text is the "correct one," and whether any given verse in the Bible, absent compelling evidence, is authoritative and divinely inspired. [Especially so in the case of the New Testament...but then, there goes sola scriptura, right?]

These are the wages of placing your faith in a book, ripped apart from all context (historical or otherwise), and entirely divorced from any kind of living tradition (here, Plato's discussion in the Phaedrus of living discourse vs. the dead letters of a written manuscript should be taken into account (I am, of course, acutely aware of the irony of my saying this)). :idunno:

Me? I say that I have the correct version of the Bible because the bishops of the Catholic Church command me to believe it.

 

[Traditio]

An addendum to my previous comment:

We can see the sheer absurdity of the protestant approach to the scriptures (clinging to its infallibility while yet divorcing it from Catholic tradition) when we see this kind of thought carried to its logical extreme in those who hold that only the King James Version of the Bible is the "correct" version.

As though Jesus spoke in Elizabethan English. :idunno:

 

[ok doser]

As though Jesus spoke in Elizabethan English. :idunno:

are you suggesting that He didn't? :noid:

 

[Cross Reference]

An addendum to my previous comment:

We can see the sheer absurdity of the Protestant approach to the scriptures (clinging to its infallibility while yet divorcing it from Catholic tradition) when we see this kind of thought carried to its logical extreme in those who hold that only the King James Version of the Bible is the "correct" version.

As though Jesus spoke in Elizabethan English. :idunno:

Well, He certainly didn't speak in Latin either nor forbid the manuscripts to made available to the masses! But God picked the right time for that to take place, didn't He?

 

[jamie]

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)
​

 

[oatmeal]

Why is it in the biblical text

1 John 5:7 King James Version (KJV)

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

It is in some texts but only as recent additions.

Even EW Bullinger, a trinitarian, in his Companion Bible states that it should be deleted.

Well, he was honest about that. He had integrity.

II Timothy 2:15 meant something to him.

 

[Traditio]

Well, He certainly didn't speak in Latin either nor forbid the manuscripts to made available to the masses! But God picked the right time for that to take place, didn't He?

It's interesting to me that you make this point. If you recall the gospel accounts of the crucifixion, you'll find that Pontius Pilate had the inscription over Jesus' head, "Jesus the Nazorene, King of the Jews (Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudeorum (ordinarily shortened to INRI))," written in Greek, Hebrew and Latin.

At the time, Judea was under Roman occupation, and Jesus most certainly conversed with Roman soldiers and officials. I see no reason to rule out the possibility that he spoke Latin or Greek, even if Hebrew or Aramaic were his "native" tongue. In what language did he converse with Pontius Pilate...? In what language did the centurion speak to him ("Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum, sed tantum dic verbo..." ("Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word...")), and in what language did Jesus answer? I don't know. :idunno:

At any rate, Jesus most certainly didn't speak Elizabethan English (not, of course, to deny that He knew the language and could have so spoken it if He had chosen to do so), and there is nothing particularly special about the King James Version.

The simple fact is that certain protestants like this version so much because it just so happens to come from manuscripts which seem to support their own doctrinal views. But why should we assume that those manuscripts are accurate?

Again, the protestant approach to the scriptures is positively silly, and ultimately, as I said to Bright Raven, you are left with one of two choices:

1. Blind faith that your text is the correct one.
2. The admission of the possibility that, perhaps, the text is incorrect (but there goes biblical inerrancy, sola scriptura, etc.).

 

[Bright Raven]

It is in some texts but only as recent additions.

Even EW Bullinger, a trinitarian, in his Companion Bible states that it should be deleted.

Well, he was honest about that. He had integrity.

II Timothy 2:15 meant something to him.

It's in the KJV but not in the newer versions. Why did the translators see fit to remove it?

 

[Cruciform]

Curses, Cruciform, why do you insist on posting links that directly answer the question(s) at hand, i.e., which have all of the relevant information which has been requested? It's so anti-dialogue! I should report your posting this very instant

Er...sorry?

 

[JJ84]

Er...sorry?

That is all right with me, Cruciform it made for an interesting view, Thank you very much.

 

[Cross Reference]

It's interesting to me that you make this point. If you recall the gospel accounts of the crucifixion, you'll find that Pontius Pilate had the inscription over Jesus' head, "Jesus the Nazorene, King of the Jews (Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudeorum (ordinarily shortened to INRI))," written in Greek, Hebrew and Latin.

At the time, Judea was under Roman occupation, and Jesus most certainly conversed with Roman soldiers and officials. I see no reason to rule out the possibility that he spoke Latin or Greek, even if Hebrew or Aramaic were his "native" tongue. In what language did he converse with Pontius Pilate...? In what language did the centurion speak to him ("Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum, sed tantum dic verbo..." ("Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word...")), and in what language did Jesus answer? I don't know. :idunno:

At any rate, Jesus most certainly didn't speak Elizabethan English (not, of course, to deny that He knew the language and could have so spoken it if He had chosen to do so), and there is nothing particularly special about the King James Version.

The simple fact is that certain protestants like this version so much because it just so happens to come from manuscripts which seem to support their own doctrinal views. But why should we assume that those manuscripts are accurate?

Again, the protestant approach to the scriptures is positively silly, and ultimately, as I said to Bright Raven, you are left with one of two choices:

1. Blind faith that your text is the correct one.
2. The admission of the possibility that, perhaps, the text is incorrect (but there goes biblical inerrancy, sola scriptura, etc.).

In a word as to how the KJV stands out: "Insight". The reformation was the time when God began to reinstitute His original intentions for man in His new creation. Why? Because God got fed up with the RCC which continually got it wrong.

 

[Aner]

It's in the KJV but not in the newer versions. Why did the translators see fit to remove it?

Do a textual analysis - it is painfully obvious why it is removed.

 

[Nihilo]

I agree with the spirit and not the tone of Traditio's take here.

Here is an example, and a wonderful one, of the Apostolic oral tradition. This mythical and real story is what only the pope is guaranteed to know at any point in time, with the exception of Church councils. When the Church convenes a council it is because a super majority of bishops are guaranteed to know the Apostolic oral tradition, which exists today just as it did when the beloved Apostle John was fried like a Thanksgiving turkey. The Magisterium then, after the last Apostle departed this life, knew the Apostolic oral tradition, and it contained that the Apostle John always wanted to include his "comma" in his epistle 1st John, but he for whatever reason didn't include it. When it was finally included, it was because the Magisterium decided that it was the right time to fulfill the Apostle John's wish.

It's pretty awesome. If you ask me.