Comma Johanneum - Whats your position?

[firedragon]

Well, everyone probably knows that Erasmus didnt have the Comma Johanneum but then due to some kind of pressure included it in his second work, thus the tradition of the Johannine Comma. 1st John 5:7.

Being the only explicit and concise verse in the entire bible that has the modern day trinity in a nutshell, there are still those who refuse to let go of this verse. The topic is not about the doctrine whatsoever, it is about this verse.

Some of the apologetics to hold onto this verse has been that "why would any one forge a verse when the doctrine exists?". I think that sentence is weird by itself because assumed purpose of including this verse in the first place in the Textus Receptus was because there was no other verse that explicitly supported the doctrine in a nutshell. Also, this is an absolutely confirmation bias.

The reasoning is, "though the earlier manuscripts didnt have this verse, since the doctrine existed, it cannot be a forgery".

Well, there are many other issues as well that have very very similar answers. Nevertheless, what is your position on the comma johanneum? Do you think it was a forgery, not part of the bible, or do you believe it was not a forgery, and is indeed part of the Bible?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Well, everyone probably knows that Erasmus didnt have the Comma Johanneum but then due to some kind of pressure included it in his second work, thus the tradition of the Johannine Comma. 1st John 5:7.

Being the only explicit and concise verse in the entire bible that has the modern day trinity in a nutshell, there are still those who refuse to let go of this verse. The topic is not about the doctrine whatsoever, it is about this verse.

Some of the apologetics to hold onto this verse has been that "why would any one forge a verse when the doctrine exists?". I think that sentence is weird by itself because assumed purpose of including this verse in the first place in the Textus Receptus was because there was no other verse that explicitly supported the doctrine in a nutshell. Also, this is an absolutely confirmation bias.

The reasoning is, "though the earlier manuscripts didnt have this verse, since the doctrine existed, it cannot be a forgery".

Well, there are many other issues as well that have very very similar answers. Nevertheless, what is your position on the comma johanneum? Do you think it was a forgery, not part of the bible, or do you believe it was not a forgery, and is indeed part of the Bible?

you've linked the Gospel of John 5:7, not 1 John 5:7...

 

[Teritos]

Well, everyone probably knows that Erasmus didnt have the Comma Johanneum but then due to some kind of pressure included it in his second work, thus the tradition of the Johannine Comma. 1st John 5:7.

Being the only explicit and concise verse in the entire bible that has the modern day trinity in a nutshell, there are still those who refuse to let go of this verse. The topic is not about the doctrine whatsoever, it is about this verse.

Some of the apologetics to hold onto this verse has been that "why would any one forge a verse when the doctrine exists?". I think that sentence is weird by itself because assumed purpose of including this verse in the first place in the Textus Receptus was because there was no other verse that explicitly supported the doctrine in a nutshell. Also, this is an absolutely confirmation bias.

The reasoning is, "though the earlier manuscripts didnt have this verse, since the doctrine existed, it cannot be a forgery".

Well, there are many other issues as well that have very very similar answers. Nevertheless, what is your position on the comma johanneum? Do you think it was a forgery, not part of the bible, or do you believe it was not a forgery, and is indeed part of the Bible?

We see the Trinity everywhere in the Bible, for example in Psalms 33:6,
By the word of Yahweh the heavens were made,
And by the spirit of His mouth all their lights.

YAHWEH(father), the Holy SPIRIT and the WORD(son).

1 John 5:7
There are three that testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.

 

[Rival]

This is long but it goes into detail about this issue and it's where I leanrt all about it

 

[Subduction Zone]

We see the Trinity everywhere in the Bible, for example in Psalms 33:6,
By the word of Yahweh the heavens were made,
And by the spirit of His mouth all their lights.

YAHWEH(father), the Holy SPIRIT and the WORD(son).

1 John 5:7
There are three that testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.

Creative interpretation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nevertheless, what is your position on the comma johanneum? Do you think it was a forgery, not part of the bible, or do you believe it was not a forgery, and is indeed part of the Bible?

The Comma Johanneum is part of the Bible. I mean, open the Bible up and it's right there. Are you asking whether the passage should be part of the Bible?

I'm not sure what you mean by "forgery." It certainly seems like it was a change from the earliest surviving manuscripts, but the Bible is the product of millenia of change anyway.

It's also a bit hard for me to wrap my head around the idea that one statement of dubious authorship inserted into a book of dubious authorship is somehow a "forgery" in a way that is different from the whole book being a "forgery."

So...

• Is the Comma Johanneum in the Bible? Yes.
• Was there a time when the Comma Johanneum wasn't in the Bible? Yes... but there was a time when most of the Bible wasn't in the Bible.
• Does God want the Comma Johanneum in the Bible? I don't know; ask God.

 

[sun rise]

everyone probably knows that Erasmus didnt have the Comma Johanneum

Not everyone. Not me at least since I never cared about Christian theology. And reading about it for a few seconds on the internet did not change my mind - I'll leave that debate to others.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Well, everyone probably knows that Erasmus didnt have the Comma Johanneum but then due to some kind of pressure included it in his second work, thus the tradition of the Johannine Comma. 1st John 5:7.

Being the only explicit and concise verse in the entire bible that has the modern day trinity in a nutshell, there are still those who refuse to let go of this verse. The topic is not about the doctrine whatsoever, it is about this verse.

Some of the apologetics to hold onto this verse has been that "why would any one forge a verse when the doctrine exists?". I think that sentence is weird by itself because assumed purpose of including this verse in the first place in the Textus Receptus was because there was no other verse that explicitly supported the doctrine in a nutshell. Also, this is an absolutely confirmation bias.

The reasoning is, "though the earlier manuscripts didnt have this verse, since the doctrine existed, it cannot be a forgery".

Well, there are many other issues as well that have very very similar answers. Nevertheless, what is your position on the comma johanneum? Do you think it was a forgery, not part of the bible, or do you believe it was not a forgery, and is indeed part of the Bible?

I consider the Bible to be a redacted work with a lot added in over the centuries. Mainly the middle ages.

 

[Rival]

The Comma Johanneum is part of the Bible. I mean, open the Bible up and it's right there. Are you asking whether the passage should be part of the Bible?

It's not. It's not in any modern Bible that I know, except perhaps as a footnote explaining how it made its way into the KJV.

 

[McBell]

We see the Trinity everywhere in the Bible, for example in Psalms 33:6,
By the word of Yahweh the heavens were made,
And by the spirit of His mouth all their lights.

YAHWEH(father), the Holy SPIRIT and the WORD(son).

1 John 5:7
There are three that testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.

um...
When you add the next verse do you end up with six that make two or six that make one....?

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
1 John 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
​

 

[firedragon]

you've linked the Gospel of John 5:7, not 1 John 5:7...

I didnt link anything. I just typed it, and some auto link appeared. So if you wish to refer it, go to the source, dont click on the link.

Thanks for pointing it out. I just dont know how to create links.

 

[firedragon]

We see the Trinity everywhere in the Bible, for example in Psalms 33:6,
By the word of Yahweh the heavens were made,
And by the spirit of His mouth all their lights.

YAHWEH(father), the Holy SPIRIT and the WORD(son).

1 John 5:7
There are three that testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.

As I said in the OP, this is not about the Trinity debate.

Nevertheless you have quoted the exact verse in dispute in the OP. Maybe you just didnt read it fully.

THIS VERSE IS A FORGERY. 1 JOHN 5:7. THATS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE OP.

 

[firedragon]

This is long but it goes into detail about this issue and it's where I leanrt all about it

I didnt watch this video. But James White takes the view that the comma johanneum is a latter addition. So he of course agrees with most of the scholars. Actually in this case there is no choice anyway.

 

[Teritos]

As I said in the OP, this is not about the Trinity debate.

Nevertheless you have quoted the exact verse in dispute in the OP. Maybe you just didnt read it fully.

THIS VERSE IS A FORGERY. 1 JOHN 5:7. THATS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE OP.

Whether this is a forgery, no one can say, but you find the Comma Johanneum already in Latin writings from the second century. This is a great proof that the passage is authentic.

 

[firedragon]

The Comma Johanneum is part of the Bible. I mean, open the Bible up and it's right there. Are you asking whether the passage should be part of the Bible?

I think you should the read the OP again and respond.

Anyway, which Bible is it a part of? Not the earliest. So please show this verse in the Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus. Go ahead. Thanks.

I'm not sure what you mean by "forgery." It certainly seems like it was a change from the earliest surviving manuscripts, but the Bible is the product of millenia of change anyway.

You see, a forgery is something someone forgers and pretends it was someone else's work.

It's also a bit hard for me to wrap my head around the idea that one statement of dubious authorship inserted into a book of dubious authorship is somehow a "forgery" in a way that is different from the whole book being a "forgery."

Well, open your mind for discussion.

A document like 1st John is generally accepted to be anonymous amongst scholars. In fact, all the Johannine works are amongst others. If you want, you could call them "dubious", its your wish. But even if the authorship is anonymous, if someone inserts a verse that was not there in for a millennium or more then pretended it belongs there, it is a forgery.

Anyway so is your position that its not a forgery? No worries.

 

[firedragon]

Whether this is a forgery, no one can say, but you find the Comma Johanneum already in Latin writings from the second century. This is a great proof that the passage is authentic.

Work from the second century? Please do provide some manuscripts that no one has ever known yet.

This is gonna be a historical find. Will be waiting.

 

[firedragon]

I consider the Bible to be a redacted work with a lot added in over the centuries. Mainly the middle ages.

This is not really considered redaction. It is considered an interpolation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's not. It's not in any modern Bible that I know, except perhaps as a footnote explaining how it made its way into the KJV.

It's in the NET, which is my normal go-to version:

Bible Gateway passage: 1 John 5:7-8 - New English Translation

It's also in the NIV, which us popular with Evangelicals:

Bible Gateway passage: 1 John 5:7-8 - New International Version

In fact, doing a quick (and definitely not exhaustive) spot-check, it was in every one of a half-dozen versions I just looked at.

 

[Rival]

It's in the NET, which is my normal go-to version:

Bible Gateway passage: 1 John 5:7-8 - New English Translation

It's also in the NIV, which us popular with Evangelicals:

Bible Gateway passage: 1 John 5:7-8 - New International Version

In fact, doing a quick (and definitely not exhaustive) spot-check, it was in every one of a half-dozen versions I just looked at.

Yes, and they all have footnotes saying it's not found in any of the Greek manuscripts.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It's not. It's not in any modern Bible that I know, except perhaps as a footnote explaining how it made its way into the KJV.

It's in my Orthodox Study Bible. Lol. It uses the NKJV for the NT.