From: eje@irenaeus.mlo.dec.com (Eric James Ewanco)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: 1 John 5: 6-8
Date: 18 Aug 92 05:39:22 GMT
Reply-To: ewanco@kalvin.enet.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

> OK, Bible scholars, could someone explain this passage to me.  Here are three
> different translations of the passage:
> 				1 John 5:6-8
[Scott quotes NASB and NIV which omit the *Johannine comma*, "the Father, the
 	  Word, and the Holy Ghost:  and these three are one."
> Why are they so different?

Actually we were just discussing this on a private message board.  For a long
time I accepted clh's explanation that it was added, but someone posted
compelling evidence that it may not in fact be a gloss.  After reading that
post, which I have obtained permission to reproduce below, I may be ready to
disagree with clh's position.

I can add to this post more compelling arguments.  It seems the Tertullian, a
3rd-century theologian, quoted the Comma in his work Against Praxeas, circa 213
A.D. (chap 25 v 1).  St. Cyprian of Carthage also quotes it in his work, "The
Unity of the Catholic Church", A.D. 251/256.

Both of these quotes, of course, are long before the supposed 4th century
corruption. They also predate the Trinitarian controversy at the Council of
Nicaea in 325 A.D.

This is the post I mentioned:
===============================================================================
Hank Dalelio "Longing to be at WDW"               89 lines   3-AUG-1992 08:57
                            -< I John 5:7  Part 1 >-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  This brief synopsis is from memory; Most of the work was done in
  the Andover-Newton theological library of Harvard College in Harvard
  Square. If any one wants documentation, I can provide a limited amount,
  otherwise, you can use the library, if you live close by. Its open to the
  public and if you cant find what you want there, it probably isnt
  available anymore/anyway. If you do verify any of these things please let 
  me know how accurate my memory is.

  If you turn in your non-KJV Bible to I John 5:7 
   
     KJV _ For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father
           the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
  
     it will be missing or in the margin, along with a note to the effect :

             "not in the better manuscripts".
  
  To be completely honest it should be:

             "not in the Alexandrian Greek manuscripts"

  I am convinced that I John 5:7 is indeed part of the Inspired Text
  and offer the following as support of my conviction.
     
   
  Background data :

  Generally there are two families of Greek manuscripts used in the
  collation and reconstruction of the NT :
  Byzantine and Alexandrian, the Byzantine texts come out of the Greek
  and Macedonian cultures; Greek is their native tongue. There are several
  thousand of these, the great bulk dating (generally) from the 8th to
  16th century (advent of printing press) hand written, generally in 
  small letters on paper type substances. There are precious few older
  than the 8th century, the greek scribes had a custom of burning the
  source document after copying. This practise ended slowly between the
  8th and 10th centuries. The Alexandrian manuscripts are from the shores
  of North Africa, Greek was a secondary dialectical language there. In
  fact, many of the Alexandrian texts are translations from Koine to 
  regional Greek. Generally these documents are hand written on leather type
  animal skin products in capital letters. There are no more than 100 or so
  of these. They are (generally) much older (4th century).that the Byzantine.
  Leather lasts longer than paper, Alexandrian scribes did not burn the source
  manuscript. Because these mms are older, most NT textual critics consider 
  them "better". The Byzantine tradition claims that their manuscripts are
  faithful transmissions of the original koine Greek documents as did, when
  they existed) the Alexandrian.

  However, the Alexandrian christians did not speak Greek as their native
  tongue and took great liberty with the grammatical structure of the text.
  The Alexandrian mms differ among themselves in as much as an 80% divergence, 
  while the Byzantine are 99+ % in agreement. In addition the Alexandrian 
  christians were driven by every wind of doctrine, their texts often 
  mutilated where they had doctrinal disagreements among themselves and 
  with other christians. If they didn't like the wording of a text they very
  often changed, mutilated or deleted it. The Byzantine differences however 
  are those of spelling, one word omissions and/or additions, homeoteleuton,
  (scribes' eyes return to the wrong place in the source)...etc. Generally,
  defective Byzantine mss were burned (some slipped through).

  The modern texual critics problem : 
  The Alexandrian "A" (I believe it is A or Aleph) Manuscript of the NT :

  One fly in this Alexandrian "better manuscript" ointment is the fact that
  this Alexandrian NT dated from the 4th century has the book of Matthew 
  (in the same scribal hand) in a very pure BYZANTINE tradition. No NT
  textual critic has ever dared tried to explain this (as far as I know) and 
  stands as one witness that the Byzantine text pre-dates the Alexandrian.

  Most "new" versions af the NT are based upon the Alexandrian texts.
  (A translation of the Wescott and Hort NT collation).

  The KJV 1611 is based on a very ancient set of Byzantine (perhaps the root)
  texts which existed then (1611) but not now (why? - later).
  Incidentally, I'm not a KJV only adherent, I use other versions, but
  with a great deal of caution.

  These facts above warrant a serious look at just what is a "better" 
  manuscript. The next note will contain information of another ancient
  witness (mentioned by Marshall) The Old Latin or Itala manuscripts.


                      Hank
-------------------------
Eric
--
/=============================================================================\
| Eric Ewanco - Software Engineer     For the rash and outrageous opinions ex-|
| Digital Equipment Corp, Maynard MA  pressed herein I alone am responsible;  |
| ewanco@kalvin.enet.dec.com          they do not belong to DIGITAL(TM).      |
\==============================- 2 Th 2:15 -==================================/
    "...[T]he greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and
    organized at Rome by [] Peter and Paul, [is] that Church which has the
    tradition and faith which comes down to us after having been announced
    to men by the Apostles.  For with this Church, because of its superior
    origin, all Churches must agree ...  and it is in her that the
    faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition."
       -- St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, c. 180 A.D., 3,3,3.