From news@bbn.com Wed Aug 19 06:51:00 1992 Received: from rodan.UU.NET by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA06072; Wed, 19 Aug 92 06:51:00 EDT Received: from relay1.UU.NET by rodan.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-mail-drop) id AA23138; Wed, 19 Aug 92 06:50:52 -0400 Received: from NEWS.BBN.COM by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA07916; Wed, 19 Aug 92 06:50:51 -0400 Message-Id: <9208191050.AA07916@relay1.UU.NET> To: soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net Subject: Textual Evidence and the Johannean Comma [was: 1 John 5: 6-8] Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 6:50:11 EDT From: news%BBN@uunet.uu.net Sender: news%BBN@uunet.uu.net Path: bbn.com!ncramer From: ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Textual Evidence and the Johannean Comma [was: 1 John 5: 6-8] Date: 19 Aug 1992 10:50:10 GMT Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA Lines: 64 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron) asks about the variations in 1Jn5:7 (i.e. the Johannean Comma). OFM cites the scanty textual support given in the critical apparatus of UBS3. It is probably useful going over the (textual) evidence in a little more detail as it is even more one-sided than even this pessimistic account would imply. 1] The evidence in the Greek manuscripts. The passage appears in only four Greek manuscripts. o Greg 88: A 12th cent. manuscript in which the passage is written in the margin in a 17th cent. hand. o Greg 629. A manuscript variously dated as from the 14th to the 16th cent. o Tisch 110: A manuscript copy, dating from the 16th cent, of the Greek text from the Complutensian Polyglot[*]. o ms 61: Which, as we've seen, shows every indication of being created expressly in order to supply a justification for the inclusion of this passage in Erasmus' Greek NT. (There is a great deal of variation as to the actual wording of the passage among even these four witnesses.) So, to repeat the obvious, the passage is not known in _any_ Greek manuscript before the 14th century. The later evidence is highly suspect (to say the least). [* The Complutensian Polyglot was prepared by Cardinal Ximenes of Spain for Pope Leo X. The NT consisted of parallel columns of Greek and Latin. It has the distinction of being the first _printed_ Greek NT --although Erasmus' editon was _published_ first. It, in a certain sense, functioned as the "official" Greek text of the Catholic Church for several centuries.] 2] Evidence of the Latin Manuscripts: The passage does not appear in manuscripts of the Vulgate before the 8th century and is missing from major manuscripts for some time after that (e.g. it does not appear in the revision by Alcuin from the 9th cent.) In particular, it does not occur in the version released by Jerome. It does not appear in the earliest version of the Old Latin (i.e. pre-Vulgate) versions. The first appearance in a Latin manuscript is a single occurance in a 6th century manuscript. 3] Evidence from other versions: The passage does not occur in _any_ of the other ancient versions: Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabian or Slavonic. 4] Patristic Evidence. The passage is not cited by any of the Greek Father. (Given their prediliction for Trinitarian controversies, this would have been a most surprising omission, had they actually known of the passage.) The earliest citation by a Latin Father is the 4th cent. "Liber Apologeticus" (attributed to either Priscillian or Instantius). Not until the 5th century did any Latin Father explicitly cite the passage as part of 1Jn. N From news@bbn.com Wed Aug 19 07:01:54 1992 Received: from rodan.UU.NET by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA06117; Wed, 19 Aug 92 07:01:54 EDT Received: from relay1.UU.NET by rodan.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-mail-drop) id AA25047; Wed, 19 Aug 92 07:01:52 -0400 Received: from NEWS.BBN.COM by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA08676; Wed, 19 Aug 92 07:01:50 -0400 Message-Id: <9208191101.AA08676@relay1.UU.NET> To: soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net Subject: The Syrian/Byzantine Text and the Johannean Comma [was: 1 John 5: 6-8] Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 6:52:51 EDT From: news%BBN@uunet.uu.net Sender: news%BBN@uunet.uu.net Path: bbn.com!ncramer From: ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: The Syrian/Byzantine Text and the Johannean Comma [was: 1 John 5: 6-8] Date: 19 Aug 1992 10:52:50 GMT Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA Lines: 262 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com eje@irenaeus.mlo.dec.com (Eric James Ewanco) writes: > [...] In an earlier article I've specifically discussed the (lack of) textual evidence behind Johannean Comma. However, the following article contains such a bewildering array of errors that it seemed worthwhile to attempt to address some of this separately. [Abbreviations and citations are explained at the bottom.] >[Scott quotes NASB and NIV which omit the *Johannine comma*, "the Father, the > Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." >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. There are even more compelling arguements against the inclusion. While it may be true that Tertullian and Cyprian cited this passage (I've not yet been able to check this), there is no evidence that they claimed they were citing scripture. In partiular, neither Tertullian nor Cyprian included the passage in their (pre-Vulgate) Latin translations of the NT [see TCGNT, pg 716]. >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. On the other hand, the passage is quoted by _none_ of the Greek Fathers. Given their interest in Trinitarian controversies (cf Savellian and Arian), had they actually know this passage, this ommission would be most surprising. >This is the post I mentioned: >Hank Dalelio "Longing to be at WDW" 89 lines 3-AUG-1992 08:57 > If you turn in your non-KJV Bible to I John 5:7, [the Johannean Comma] > 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" This is incorrect. Prior to the 14th cent. this passage occurs in _no_ [none, zero, nada, zip] Greek manuscripts, Alexandrian or otherwise. After that time the passage occurs in only four manuscripts. In two of these, it is a marginal note. The third is manuscript copy of a Greek Text back-tranlated from the Latin. The 4th manuscript shows every sign of having been created expressly for the purpose of allowing the passage to be included in Erasmus' edition of the Greek NT. (For more evidence see my earlier post). There is no question that this passage has no place in the Greek Manuscript tradition. **** A NOTE BEFORE WE GO ON **** What follows consists of a defense of the Textus Receptus or Syrian/ Byzantine family of Greek manuscripts as the authentic text of the NT. As we will see very nearly every statement made below is incorrect (sometimes at the level of the basic facts of world history). But be that as it may, it is important to note that this is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand: the Johannean Comma is not included in the Syrian/Byzantine --or any other-- text. (Or to take a completely different tack, even if we were to accept the Syrian/Byzantine text as the authentic text of the NT, that fact alone would compel us to reject the Johannean Comma!) Anyway, onward... > Generally there are two families of Greek manuscripts used in the > collation and reconstruction of the NT : Byzantine and Alexandrian [...] First, the standard model of NT textual family postulates at least five major families: Byzantine (or as it is more commonly called today, Syrian), Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean, and the so-called Neutral Text (closely related to the Alexandrian). Moreover these represent only the major families; a large number of smaller groupings exist. Furthermore, other systems (e.g. that of Von Soden) specify other division (which agree, in the broad, with this more standard terminology). > ... the Byzantine texts come out of the Greek and Macedonian cultures; This is incorrect. The Byzantine text is almost certainly from Syria (hence the name by which this family is known more commonly today: the Syrian). The name "Byzantine" comes from the fact that it was dissemenated widely during through the Byzantine Empire [see TNT pp 131ff]. > ... Greek is their native tongue. This is not really relevant, but the Greek of the NT is the Koine (or "Common") Greek of the Hellenistic Empire. I'm not sure what language the residents of Macedonia spoke during this period, but I'd be somewhat surprised if it were Koine. > ... the [Byzantine] greek scribes had a custom of burning the > source document after copying. This practise ended slowly between the > 8th and 10th centuries. Can you offer some (indeed, any) evidence that this was a common practice? I grant you that it rather nicely explains the absense of early evidence for the Syrian/Byzantine textual tradition, but, unfortunately, it doesn't appear to have been what actually happened. > The Alexandrian manuscripts are from the shores > of North Africa, Greek was a secondary dialectical language there. Alexandrian was the second city (after Rome) in the Western World. It was the major center of Hellenistic learning. Hellenistic Greek was a (if not the) primary language of all peoples of the entire eastern Meditranean region during this time. In particular, the scribes and others responsible for the reproduction of the manuscripts were well trained in Greek. > ... In > fact, many of the Alexandrian texts are translations from Koine to > regional Greek. [...] the Alexandrian christians did not speak Greek as > their native tongue [...] Utter, absolute, nonsense. > ... Because these [Alexandrian] mms are older, most NT textual critics consider > them "better". Yes, their age is certainly a major argument for considering them "better", as you say. But more far more importantly, there is an enourmous amount of "internal" data to support this claim. To put the matter very briefly: A number of variations in the text appear when the Byzantine/Syrian text is compared with the text of the other traditions. It is simply far, far easier to explain these variations as the Byzantine/Syrian text being a transformation of the other traditions than the converse. [For a more detailed discussion, see any introductory level book on NT textual criticism, e.g. TNT.] > [...] The Byzantine tradition claims that their manuscripts are > faithful transmissions of the original koine Greek documents as did, when > they existed) the Alexandrian. Of course. Most of those who transmitted the manuscripts made this claim. Unfortunately in the case of those who created Byzantine/Syrian texts, there is a good deal of evidence that they did not do this very well. > [The Byzantine/Syrian texts were written on perishable materials while the > Alexandrian texts were written on more durable media.] There is no evidence (at all) that either class of text was preferentially written on either of these types of media. Plenty of counter-examples to this claim exist [see any listing of the main manuscripts, e.g. that in TNT, pp 36ff] > The Alexandrian mms differ among themselves in as much as an 80% divergence, > while the Byzantine are 99+ % in agreement. These numbers are the purest fantasy. To the extent that they have any relationship with reality they are most closely the _opposite_ of the truth given the prediliction that the Byzantine/Syrian text has for paraphrase and the conflation of readings. It is worth pointing out at this point that to speak of _The_ Byzantine/ Syrian tradition is something of an oxymoron. A comparison of the (relatively) early Byzantine/Syrian manuscripts with those occuring later demonstrate the manner in which this tradition was given to accruing variant readings. > ... 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. It is certainly true that examples of both of these classes of errors exist in the manuscripts. However, it is simply false to say that either type of error was the exclusive province of either tradition. In particular, to pretend that the Byzantine/Syrian tradition was immune from this first sort of tendentious rendering is absurd. > The modern texual critics problem : > The Alexandrian "A" (I believe it is A or Aleph) Manuscript of the NT : "A" and "Aleph" (or as it is otherwise signified "S") are two, quite distinct manuscripts. We will assume that the author means "A", as "S" contains virtually no hint of Byzantine/Syrian readings. > 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. It would be difficult to know this in that in "A" Matthew is missing from the beginning up to verse 25:6. > ... 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. The important phrase here is "as far as I know". Every book and article on Textual Criticism of the NT that I have at hand discusses this point. Now, while it is true that the Gospels in "A" contain some Byzantine/Syrian readings, it is worth making a couple of points: o These passages in "A" are the _earliest_ witness to the Byzantine/Syrian tradition. To pick the two most obvious examples, the Codices "S" and "B", from at least a century earlier show no sign of Byzantine/Syrian intrusions. o It is interesting to note the logic in the above. In particular we might ask the following question: If several Byzantine/Syrian passages in the Gospels prove the primacy of the Byzantine/Syrian tradition, why does not the fact that the rest of the NT is almost purely Alexandrian in nature not prove the reverse? > Most "new" versions af the NT are based upon the Alexandrian texts. > (A translation of the Wescott and Hort NT collation). ??? No modern translator would even consider using the Wescott and Hort NT collation as his underlying Greek text. > 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). This is incorrect. As was discussed here earlier the KJV was based on Erasmus' edition of the Greek NT. His version was based on manuscripts from no earlier than the 10th cent. -- the majority coming from the 13th and 14th cents. > These facts above warrant a serious look at just what is a "better" > manuscript. [...] (setq *mild-flame* t) If there is interest in discussing these issues, I would be more than glad to do so. This is a subject that I enjoy immensely. However, if people expect to seriously discuss these issues they should expect to: 1] demonstrate some minimal understanding of the issues involved, 2] supply data or fact to support their claims and 3] drop this pretense of proof by simple assertion. Despite claims made to the contrary here, presuppositional apologetics have no place in textual criticism. (setq *mild-flame* nil) N TNT = _The Text of the New Testament_, Bruce Metzger, 3rd ed. UBS3 = The Greek NT published by the United Bible Societies (in particular the critical apparatus of the relevent passages). TCGNT = _A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament_ (a companion volume to the above). From news@bbn.com Wed Aug 19 07:01:55 1992 Received: from rodan.UU.NET by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA06119; Wed, 19 Aug 92 07:01:55 EDT Received: from relay1.UU.NET by rodan.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-mail-drop) id AA25049; Wed, 19 Aug 92 07:01:53 -0400 Received: from NEWS.BBN.COM by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA08679; Wed, 19 Aug 92 07:01:52 -0400 Message-Id: <9208191101.AA08679@relay1.UU.NET> To: soc-religion-christian@uunet.uu.net Subject: Erasmus Story [was 1 John 5: 6-8] Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 6:53:43 EDT From: news%BBN@uunet.uu.net Sender: news%BBN@uunet.uu.net Path: bbn.com!ncramer From: ncramer@bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Erasmus Story [was 1 John 5: 6-8] Date: 19 Aug 1992 10:53:43 GMT Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA Lines: 40 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: ncramer@labs-n.bbn.com (Nichael Cramer) NNTP-Posting-Host: bbn.com Just a further note: In reply to Scott Aaron's (aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu) query about the Johannean Comma, OFM writes : ... When Erasmus was :preparing a critical Greek text in 1516 he omitted the addition, since :it wasn't in any Greek texts available to him, even the relatively :late ones he had available. This caused a stink. People were used to :it from the Latin, and were upset that he "removed" it. He rashly :promised to add it if even one Greek manuscript could be found that :had it. One was produced by a Franciscan at Oxford. There is great :suspicion that it was produced for the purpose. (He apparently had :not required that the manuscript must be provably ancient.) In the :1522 edition and later, his Greek included this verse. This story invariably comes up whenever this this subject is discussed. However, it seems that it may not be true. On pg 291 (n2) of the (new) 3rd edition of _The Text of the New Testament_ Bruce Metzger writes: What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus' promise to include the _Comma Johanneum_ if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent suspicion that MS. 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be corrected in the light of hte research of H.J. de Jonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explict evidence that supports this frequently made assertion; see his "Erasmus and the _Comma Johanneum_", _Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, lvi (1980), pp 381-9. Now this is not to argue that the Comma has any place in the Greek manuscript tradition or that the manuscript was not made to order for this purpose; only that this particular detail in its history may have acquired a bit of extraneous folklore. Too bad; it was a neat story. ;) N