Comma Johanneum - Whats your position?

[firedragon]

If you took the three Epistles of John out of the New Testament in their entirety, what impact would it have on the whole? Very little, I’d suggest. A point of religious dogma might be lost; giving those so inclined one less thing to argue about.

Cant disagree with that.

Christ’s message - okay, Jesus’ message - is contained in the Gospels isn’t it? The rest of the New Testament is of historical interest only, I’d argue. Apart from Revelations, which is majestic, inspired, and for the most part utterly incomprehensible - one of my favourite books in the Bible, but not really somewhere I’d go for spiritual guidance.

It seems to me that Christians and others have spent centuries arguing over the nature of the messenger, while completely ignoring the message. Which for this agnostic lapsed Catholic boils down to these verses.

These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy may remain in you, and that your joy might be full.
This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.

With all due respect, this thread is not about any doctrine. It is about the topic of the OP.

 

[firedragon]

I think you missed the post the post you quoted is in reply to...

Mestemia. The OP is about the Comma Johanneum. Not the current 1st John 5:7. So every single bible will have a verse called 1st John 5:7, it is just a completely different verse. And many of the Bibles do have footnotes in the midst of interpolations. LIke the one I attached here from the TNIV pertaining to the topic at hand. .

 

[RestlessSoul]

With all due respect, this thread is not about any doctrine. It is about the topic of the OP.

Fair enough. I don't have a position on the veracity of those two verses. I do have a position on the quality of the scholarship that created the King James translation. Broadly speaking, I trust the collective achievement of the translators. So if it's in the KJV, it probably belongs in the epistle. Whether the epistles of John ought to be in the New Testament is another matter.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fair enough. I don't have a position on the veracity of those two verses. I do have a position on the quality of the scholarship that created the King James translation. Broadly speaking, I trust the collective achievement of the translators. So if it's in the KJV, it probably belongs in the epistle. Whether the epistles of John ought to be in the New Testament is another matter.

The point of the OP is that it probably does not belong. It is a bit like the story about the adulterous woman being brought in front of Jesus where he said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". That story is not in the oldest Greek manuscripts. Neither is the Comma Johanneum. That tells us that they were added. The only clear verse supporting the Trinity was added to the Bible. That seems to harm the claims of Trinitarians.

The quality of scholarship that produced the KJV is flawed compared to that of some newer interpretations.

 

[firedragon]

Fair enough. I don't have a position on the veracity of those two verses. I do have a position on the quality of the scholarship that created the King James translation. Broadly speaking, I trust the collective achievement of the translators. So if it's in the KJV, it probably belongs in the epistle. Whether the epistles of John ought to be in the New Testament is another matter.

Actually, the question is not even on the translation. It is not even about the KJV, thought the KJV had the Comma. It is about the authenticity of Comma Johanneum, whatever manuscript, the Vulgate or/and translations, that have it.

You said you dont have a position. Which means you dont side with scholarship or the tradition. Neither this way nor that way. Am I correct?

 

[RestlessSoul]

The point of the OP is that it probably does not belong. It is a bit like the story about the adulterous woman being brought in front of Jesus where he said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". That story is not in the oldest Greek manuscripts. Neither is the Comma Johanneum. That tells us that they were added. The only clear verse supporting the Trinity was added to the Bible. That seems to harm the claims of Trinitarians.

The quality of scholarship that produced the KJV is flawed compared to that of some newer interpretations.

Every book in the Bible was added to the whole at some point. You could argue for 2000 years as to why, by whom, and to what end? Indeed, people have; and fair enough.

To almost all readers, the Bible is a translated book. There’s no escaping that. When reading it we are at the mercy of the translators. The question for me, is not how true are the words of the Bible, but rather, how much truth is contained within it’s words.

Your interpretation of a particular passage may not be my interpretation. That doesn’t necessarily make either of us right, or wrong.

I’d take a lot of convincing that the KJV has ever or will ever be improved on as an English translation. But if you have a version you prefer, and you trust the translators, their scholarship and their motives, then good for you.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Actually, the question is not even on the translation. It is not even about the KJV, thought the KJV had the Comma. It is about the authenticity of Comma Johanneum, whatever manuscript, the Vulgate or/and translations, that have it.

You said you dont have a position. Which means you dont side with scholarship or the tradition. Neither this way nor that way. Am I correct?

Yes, you are correct. I prefer not take sides, whenever doing so can be avoided.

Edit: those verses are in my Bible though. They are in it, and they are part of it. How they got there and whether they truly belong there, I can't say.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Every book in the Bible was added to the whole at some point. You could argue for 2000 years as to why, by whom, and to what end? Indeed, people have; and fair enough.

To almost all readers, the Bible is a translated book. There’s no escaping that. When reading it we are at the mercy of the translators. The question for me, is not how true are the words of the Bible, but rather, how much truth is contained within it’s words.

Your interpretation of a particular passage may not be my interpretation. That doesn’t necessarily make either of us right, or wrong.

I’d take a lot of convincing that the KJV has ever or will ever be improved on as an English translation. But if you have a version you prefer, and you trust the translators, their scholarship and their motives, then good for you.

Okay so we have another believer in the Bible that is not a student of the Bible. As a Christian why doesn't a correct belief matter to you?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Okay so we have another believer in the Bible that is not a student of the Bible. As a Christian why doesn't a correct belief matter to you?

For me there is a world of difference between belief, correct or otherwise, and faith. I prefer to be steered by faith, rather than constrained by belief. One reason I keep returning to Christianity for answers, is because imo Jesus was a great moral teacher. I am undecided as to the nature of his divinity vs his humanity, and it doesn't much bother me tbh. I am happy not knowing, which is why I describe myself as an agnostic (though I absolutely do believe in a loving creator, who I choose to call God).

Perhaps The Bible beside my bed serves a different purpose for me, than the one beside yours does for you. I would never presume to tell you how you should read or interpret yours. Though I am interested to hear your interpretation, I'm afraid you would struggle to hold my attention for long if you began from a position of unwavering certitude.

There are several other texts that rarely leave my bedside table btw, not just The Bible. Allow me to recommend The Dhammapada (Translation Juan Mascaro). And The Bhagavad Gita, of which there are several English translations.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, you are correct. I prefer not take sides, whenever doing so can be avoided.

Edit: those verses are in my Bible though. They are in it, and they are part of it. How they got there and whether they truly belong there, I can't say.

Well. The thing is, this verse as it is in "your bible" which I dont know which one, was not there ever in any of the early manuscripts. Which means the Bible did not have it. Thus, would you simply accept it as authentic and should be there since "your bible" which ever one it is has it?

 

[firedragon]

Every book in the Bible was added to the whole at some point. You could argue for 2000 years as to why, by whom, and to what end? Indeed, people have; and fair enough.

To almost all readers, the Bible is a translated book. There’s no escaping that. When reading it we are at the mercy of the translators. The question for me, is not how true are the words of the Bible, but rather, how much truth is contained within it’s words.

Your interpretation of a particular passage may not be my interpretation. That doesn’t necessarily make either of us right, or wrong.

I’d take a lot of convincing that the KJV has ever or will ever be improved on as an English translation. But if you have a version you prefer, and you trust the translators, their scholarship and their motives, then good for you.

Thats not the issue at hand. The book called 1st epistle of John was already there in all of the early Bibles of the 4th century. But, this particular verse was not there. This is not a question of a book. This is a question about one verse that someone added into the existing bible without authority of the original author who ever it was. That is called an interpolation. You can call it what ever name you want, but the fact remains that it does not belong in the Bible because it never was.

This is not about a book, its about one single verse. We can discuss books separately.

 

[firedragon]

For me there is a world of difference between belief, correct or otherwise, and faith. I prefer to be steered by faith, rather than constrained by belief. One reason I keep returning to Christianity for answers, is because imo Jesus was a great moral teacher. I am undecided as to the nature of his divinity vs his humanity, and it doesn't much bother me tbh. I am happy not knowing, which is why I describe myself as an agnostic (though I absolutely do believe in a loving creator, who I choose to call God).

Perhaps The Bible beside my bed serves a different purpose for me, than the one beside yours does for you. I would never presume to tell you how you should read or interpret yours. Though I am interested to hear your interpretation, I'm afraid you would struggle to hold my attention for long if you began from a position of unwavering certitude.

There are several other texts that rarely leave my bedside table btw, not just The Bible. Allow me to recommend The Dhammapada (Translation Juan Mascaro). And The Bhagavad Gita, of which there are several English translations.

This is not a question of "interpretation". So you have posed a strawman. I hope you understand.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Well. The thing is, this verse as it is in "your bible" which I dont know which one, was not there ever in any of the early manuscripts. Which means the Bible did not have it. Thus, would you simply accept it as authentic and should be there since "your bible" which ever one it is has it?

The King James Version.

My criteria for accepting the veracity, or authenticity, of any text, is probably different than yours. I haven’t given the text in question enough thought to decide whether it meets my criteria, which is why I said earlier that I don’t have a position on the subject.

 

[RestlessSoul]

This is not a question of "interpretation". So you have posed a strawman. I hope you understand.

No, I don’t understand. Are you saying that any deviation from the parameters of your original question, has no place on this thread?

 

[firedragon]

No, I don’t understand. Are you saying that any deviation from the parameters of your original question, has no place on this thread?

I am no admin brother. So I am not dictating anything.

Its your prerogative. Just out of topic. No offence.

 

[Niblo]

If I may:

The King James Bible (including the American Version); the King James 2000 Bible; the Jubilee Bible 2000; the Douay-Rheims Bible (a Catholic version); the Webster’s Bible Translation; and the Young’s Literal Translation contain the ‘Comma Ioanneum’. It is emphasised below:

‘For there are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one. And there three that bear witness in Earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.’

Anthony and Richard Hanson write: ‘It (the ‘Comma Ioanneum’) was added by some enterprising person or persons in the ancient Church who felt that the New Testament was sadly deficient in direct witness to the kind of doctrine of the Trinity which he favoured and who determined to remedy that defect . . . It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament.’ (‘Reasonable Belief: A Survey of the Christian Faith; page 171).

The ‘Comma Ioanneum’ is spurious, and yet for centuries the Church insisted it be included in 1 John 5: 7-8; on the grounds that it had become official Church teaching.

In 1927, the Holy Office (Guardian of Catholic orthodoxy; and once named the ‘Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition’) declared: ‘After careful examination of the whole circumstances that its genuineness could be denied’ (Ludwig Ott: ‘Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma’, page 56).

This is why my Bible (the Jerusalem Bible – a second Catholic version) reads: ‘So there are three witnesses, the Spirit, water and blood; and the three of them coincide.’

 

[McBell]

Mestemia. The OP is about the Comma Johanneum. Not the current 1st John 5:7. So every single bible will have a verse called 1st John 5:7, it is just a completely different verse. And many of the Bibles do have footnotes in the midst of interpolations. LIke the one I attached here from the TNIV pertaining to the topic at hand. .

View attachment 49227

And yet the claim was that all of them have a foot note, which the post in question reveals is not the case.
In fact, every version of that verse produced before the Comma Johanneum was added does NOT have a footnote.
Though many of the newer versions of the of them do.
Which goes to show how much influence the Comma Johanneum has on the Christian community.

 

[firedragon]

And yet the claim was that all of them have a foot note,

Aight. Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

And yet the claim was that all of them have a foot note,

wow Someone claimed "all of them have foot notes"? Hmm.

You mean like someone claimed even the oldest KJV had foot notes? I am honestly intrigued to see who claimed that really.