Comma Johanneum

[Guest kingdombrat]

Edited June 5, 2021 by kingdombrat

[David1701]

9 hours ago, Steven Avery said:

Jerome strongly supported the verse, see what he wrote in the Vulgate Prologue.
 

Modern scholars try to pretend that the Prologue was written by somebody other than Jerome.  This is in the earliest extant Vulgate manuscript, Codex Fuldensis, and the arguments against Jerome's authorship are extremely weak.

The Old Latin manuscripts were called the Vulgate (i.e. in the common language), long before Jerome made his "revision", which, although significantly altered, was also called the Vulgate.

[David1701]

8 hours ago, Steven Avery said:

The nine (or ten) Greek manuscripts are what we have extant today, they were not in the hands of the learned men of the AV.

They did know the massive historical Latin manuscript evidence for the verse. And how dozens of Latin commentators discussed the verse in detail over the centuries. And how it fits perfectly in the text as Johannine scripture.

Well now, whether the Greek manuscripts we have now (that contain 1 John 5:7) are the same ones that the AV translators had, according to Gill (a seventeenth century Baptist pastor and Bible commentator, of good repute) Robert Stephens (a 16th C. editor of the Textus Receptus) had 16 Greek manuscripts and 9 of those contained 1 John 5:7.

Here is an extract from Gill's commentary on 1 John 5:7 (he supports its authenticity).

"And as to its being wanting in some Greek manuscripts, as the Alexandrian, and others, it need only be said, that it is to be found in many others; it is in an old British copy, and in the Complutensian edition, the compilers of which made use of various copies; and out of sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephens's, nine of them had it..."

It sounds to me as if you agree with me that 1 John 5:7 is genuine Scripture.

[Guest kingdombrat]

Something else interesting I found was the Aramaic Written New Testament from the late First/early Second Centuries.

 

The Aramaic Text used to translate here at TheAramaicScriptures.com, is from Eastern Aramaic Manuscripts, such as The Khabouris Manuscrip,  which in turn likely was itself a faithful copy of The Original Aramaic New Testament Scriptures, believed to have been produced in the ancient City of Edessa in the late first, or early second century.

^

Let's say this Copy is from the Second Century Version:

 

Here is that Version of 1 John 5:6-8

ܗܢܘ ܕܐܬܐ ܒܝܕ ܡܝܐ ܘܕܡܐ ܝܫܘܥ ܡܫܝܚܐ ܠܐ ܗܘܐ ܒܡܝܐ ܒܠܚܘܕ ܐܠܐ ܒܡܝܐ ܘܕܡܐ
6 This is The One who came by means of The Water and The Blood; Eshu Meshikha {Yeshua, The Anointed One}. It wasn't of The Water alone, but rather, by The Water and The Blood. 

 ܘܪܘܚܐ ܡܣܗܕܐ ܕܗܝ ܪܘܚܐ ܐܝܬܝܗ ܫܪܪܐ
7 And The Rukha {The Spirit} testifies; because that One, The Rukha {The Spirit}, is The Truth.

 ܘܐܝܬܝܗܘܢ ܬܠܬܐ ܣܗܕܝܢ ܪܘܚܐ ܘܡܝܐ ܘܕܡܐ ܘܬܠܬܝܗܘܢ ܒܚܕ ܐܢܘܢ
8 And there are three testifying: The Rukha {The Spirit}, and The Water, and The Blood. And these three are in One.

 

Two interesting facts here:

1) The Aramaic Scriptures are credited to Thaddeus, the man voted by the Disciples to take Judas' position in the 12

 

2) If this was actually first written in late First Century beginning Second Century, this is claiming the [original Version of 1 John] DOES NOT include Father-Word-Holy Spirit

 

Clearly, the from Heaven Triune Version [Father-WORD-Holy Spirit] is added into the Bible [AFTER] the Nicene Creed.

 

Now, does that mean it is not inspired?

 

That's how whomever desires to view it, isn't it?

 

Edited June 5, 2021 by kingdombrat

[Steven Avery]

7 hours ago, David1701 said:

 ....according to Gill (a seventeenth century Baptist pastor and Bible commentator, of good repute) Robert Stephens (a 16th C. editor of the Textus Receptus) had 16 Greek manuscripts and 9 of those contained 1 John 5:7.

" ... and out of sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephens's, nine of them had it..."

It sounds to me as if you agree with me that 1 John 5:7 is genuine Scripture.

Hi David701,

Definitely.  There are many evidences unto proof that the verse of the heavenly witnesses is genuine Scripture. 100%+

However, the defenders of the verse have often allowed the discussion to go off on mistaken rabbit trails.

While John Gill is normally reliable, and makes good points in his section on the verse, his support of the theory/interpretation that Stephanus had 9 Greek mss. with the verse was an error. And it was known to be wrong at the time he wrote, Lucas Brugensis had started to clear it up c. 1580.

It is a bit of an involved topic, I try to help unravel it here:

PBF - heavenly witnesses
the Stephanus manuscript question - crochet, semi-circles
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/the-stephanus-manuscript-question-crochet-semi-circles.80/

Steven Avery

Edited June 5, 2021 by Steven Avery

[David1701]

24 minutes ago, Steven Avery said:

Hi David701,

Definitely.  There are many evidences unto proof that the verse of the heavenly witnesses is genuine Scripture. 100%+

However, the defenders of the verse have often allowed the discussion to go off on mistaken rabbit trails.

While John Gill is normally reliable, and makes good points in his section on the verse, his support of the theory/interpretation that Stephanus had 9 Greek mss. with the verse was an error. And it was known to be wrong at the time he wrote, Lucas Brugensis had started to clear it up c. 1580.

It is a bit of an involved topic, I try to help unravel it here:

PBF - heavenly witnesses
the Stephanus manuscript question - crochet, semi-circles
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/the-stephanus-manuscript-question-crochet-semi-circles.80/

Steven Avery

Thanks for the link.  I'll look into it.

[Guest kingdombrat]

6 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

Something else interesting I found was the Aramaic Written New Testament from the late First/early Second Centuries.

 

The Aramaic Text used to translate here at TheAramaicScriptures.com, is from Eastern Aramaic Manuscripts, such as The Khabouris Manuscrip,  which in turn likely was itself a faithful copy of The Original Aramaic New Testament Scriptures, believed to have been produced in the ancient City of Edessa in the late first, or early second century.

^

Let's say this Copy is from the Second Century Version:

 

Here is that Version of 1 John 5:6-8

ܗܢܘ ܕܐܬܐ ܒܝܕ ܡܝܐ ܘܕܡܐ ܝܫܘܥ ܡܫܝܚܐ ܠܐ ܗܘܐ ܒܡܝܐ ܒܠܚܘܕ ܐܠܐ ܒܡܝܐ ܘܕܡܐ
6 This is The One who came by means of The Water and The Blood; Eshu Meshikha {Yeshua, The Anointed One}. It wasn't of The Water alone, but rather, by The Water and The Blood. 

 ܘܪܘܚܐ ܡܣܗܕܐ ܕܗܝ ܪܘܚܐ ܐܝܬܝܗ ܫܪܪܐ
7 And The Rukha {The Spirit} testifies; because that One, The Rukha {The Spirit}, is The Truth.

 ܘܐܝܬܝܗܘܢ ܬܠܬܐ ܣܗܕܝܢ ܪܘܚܐ ܘܡܝܐ ܘܕܡܐ ܘܬܠܬܝܗܘܢ ܒܚܕ ܐܢܘܢ
8 And there are three testifying: The Rukha {The Spirit}, and The Water, and The Blood. And these three are in One.

 

Two interesting facts here:

1) The Aramaic Scriptures are credited to Thaddeus, the man voted by the Disciples to take Judas' position in the 12

 

2) If this was actually first written in late First Century beginning Second Century, this is claiming the [original Version of 1 John] DOES NOT include Father-Word-Holy Spirit

 

Clearly, the from Heaven Triune Version [Father-WORD-Holy Spirit] is added into the Bible [AFTER] the Nicene Creed.

 

Now, does that mean it is not inspired?

 

That's how whomever desires to view it, isn't it?

 

If we  go off of the OLDEST KNOWN GREEK BIBLES [Codex Vaticanus] and [Codex Sinaiticus]

 

This is their Version of 1st John 5:6-8

6 This is he that came through water and blood, Jesus Christ: not in the water only, but in the water and in the blood; and it is the Spirit that testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.

7 For they that testify are three,

8 the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are one.

 

 

So, we have the Very OLDEST MANUSCRIPTS in Late First Century Aramaic Scriptures, the OLDEST KNOWN GREEK Bibles [Codex Vaticanus] and [Codex Sinaiticus] and ALL 3 CLAIM SAME THING!

 

So, if the Triune Heaven Version [IS NOT] found in either the {{Aramaic Scriptures, [Codex Vaticanus] and [Codex Sinaiticus]}} Versions, it clearly is an ADD IN much later.

 

Chances are then it is not the Inspired Word of God!