Johannine Comma and Erasmus

From Textus Receptus

Revision as of 01:35, 25 April 2020 by Nick (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision (diff) | Newer revision→ (diff)

The Comma Johanneum is missing in Erasmus' first edition of 1516, the Novum Instrumentum omne (Pic from [1]) 1 John 5:6 begins on the first line with “οὗτός.” 1 John 5:7 begins on the fifth line and reads, “ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες” (“for there are three that testify”). If the Comma were included, the text would continue: “εν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἕν τῇ γῇ.” But the words don't appear.

Erasmus said:

I never discuss this passage without testifying to the truth of what people gather from that passage: that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit share the very same essence, lest anyone should suspect any trace of heresy. And if the slightest offence should arise from this, it comes from those who spin slander out of thin air, and drag into the open a question that ought to be discussed between scholars. — Erasmus, Defence against certain Spanish monks (1528)

The Comma Johanneum is missing in Erasmus' first edition of 1516, the Novum Instrumentum omne. He subsequently produced four more editions. The first two lacked the Comma, which was first included in the 1522 edition of his Greek New Testament. It subsequently appeared in every later edition of the Greek New Testament that came to be retroactively called Textus Receptus after 1633.

So while Erasmus affirmed the authenticity of the verse in the Latin, the scholastic standards of the day compelled him to withhold it from the first two editions in the Greek. So, the verse was not disputed among the scholarly editions in Latin. This explains Erasmus behavior concerning the omission of the Greek Comma Johanneum until more Greek evidence emerged for the reading.

Erasmus and Cyprian

Image:Erasmus 1520 Book with Cyrpian quote of 1 John 5.7.jpg

Erasmus' 1520 book with Cyrpian quote of 1 John 5.7. It has a dedication written in 1519

The first Cyprian edition of Erasmus was in 1520 Opera diui Caecilii Cypriani episcopi Carthaginensis, ab innumeris mendis repurgata, adiectis nonnullis libellis ex uetustissimis exemplaribus ... atque haec omnia nobis praestitit ingenti labore suo Erasmus Roterdamus ... by Thascius Caecilius Cyprianus in which he quotes the Johannine Comma reference of Cyprian.

It is quite possible that Erasmus only saw the Cyprian reference after his 1516 first edition and it was an unspoken contributor to his including the heavenly witnesses in the third edition. The dedication for Erasmus' 1520 book by Cyrpian was written in 1519^[1]. In the margin there Cyprian quotes the latter part of the comma, i.e. "it is written of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, "And these three are one.", Erasmus marks in the margin the John 10:30 reference of Cyprian that proceeds it, "I and the Father are one;".

Erasmus and Montfortianus

Comma Johanneum in Codex Montfortianus.

The “Rash Wager” Anecdote refutation.

The usual claim by modern version supporters is that Erasmus omitted the Comma in his first Editions of the Greek New Testament, so the "Textus Receptus" (TR) stream already had this omission and therefore TR advocates are admitting that the verse was inserted due to the Churches pressure upon Erasmus to follow the Latin Vulgate. Many erroneously assume that because Erasmus' 1516 edition was the first New Testament published by the printing press, that it was also the first printed, but this is untrue. The Complutensian Polyglot had been printed 2 years earlier, but was not published until the Old Testament was completed in 1522. The Complutensian edition contains the Comma. So the claim that the first edition of the TR did not have the Comma is untrue.

Many arguments about Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum are out of date. Bruce Metzger (the father of modern textual criticism) was largely responsible for the stories of Erasmus being forced to include the Comma in the Textus Receptus stream. Yet in the 3rd and for 4th editions of Metzger's book "The Text of the New Testament" he retracted those statements. Metzger based his retraction on the work of H.J. de Jonge, the Dean of the Faculty of Theology at Rijksuniversiteit (Leiden, Netherlands) and a recognized world authority on Erasmus.

The conclusions in de Jonge’s writtings are as follows:

(1) The current view that Erasmus promised to insert the Comma Johanneum if it could be shown to him in a single Greek manuscript, has no foundation in Erasmus' works Consequently it is highly improbable that he included the disputed passage because he considered himself bound by any such promise.

(2) It cannot be shown from Erasmus' works that he suspected the Codex Britannicus (Minuscule 61) of being written with a view to force him to include the Comma Johanneum.

Metzger justifies his retraction on the basis of advances in research in the last quarter of a century. Along side this new research is further strengthening of the validity of the Majority Text manuscripts and Textus Receptus mainly because of less disruption in the “transmission history” of the Byzantine Texts.

The Comma Johanneum is missing in Erasmus' second edition of 1519, the Novum Testamentum omne (Pic from [2])

With the third edition of Erasmus' Greek text (1522) the Comma Johanneum was included. Many claim that this is because a single 16th-century Greek manuscript (Codex Montfortianus) had subsequently been found to contain it, though Erasmus had expressed doubt as to the authenticity of the passage in his Annotations. But this has been challenged by scholars such as William Sandell. [3] [4]

Richard Porson the most likely candidate for the invention of the “Rash Wager” anecdote, although Granley McDonald assumed it was Richard Simon in his book.

Codex Montfortianus
Putting to Rest an Old Canard about Erasmus by Peter Gurry July 31, 2019
More on Erasmus and Codex Montfortianus by Peter Gurry August 07, 2019
H. J. De Jonge, “Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum,” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovaniensis 56, no. 4 (1980), 381–89.

Erasmus and Jerome

Erasmus' inability to respond sensibly on Jerome’s Vulgate Prologue reveals he was flummoxed and a lapse of reason and almost in desperation he accused Jerome of forging the verse, even though he normally was very pro-Jerome. The arguments against Jerome’s authorship arose 150 years later.

The King James Version 2023 Edition New Testament is now complete and in print format here.

Internal Links

Old Testament - New Testament KJV 1900

New Testament KJV 2016

Scrivener's 1894 Textus Receptus

2016 Urdu New Testament (TR Based)

Russian Synodal Version (TR Based)

Reina Valera Gómez Spanish (TR Based)

Marginal Notes in the 1611 Authorized Version

Ephesians 3:9

Why We Should Not Passover Easter 1, 2, & 3

Will Kinney

List of TR/KJV based foreign bibles

List of New Testament minuscules

List of New Testament lectionaries

^{List of New Testament Papyri}

𝔓¹ · 𝔓² · 𝔓³ · 𝔓⁴ · 𝔓⁵ · 𝔓⁶ · 𝔓⁷ · 𝔓⁸ · 𝔓⁹ · 𝔓¹⁰ · 𝔓¹¹ · 𝔓¹² · 𝔓¹³ · 𝔓¹⁴ · 𝔓¹⁵ · 𝔓¹⁶ · 𝔓¹⁷ · 𝔓¹⁸ · 𝔓¹⁹ · 𝔓²⁰ · 𝔓²¹ · 𝔓²² · 𝔓²³ · 𝔓²⁴ · 𝔓²⁵ · 𝔓²⁶ · 𝔓²⁷ · 𝔓²⁸ · 𝔓²⁹ · 𝔓³⁰ · 𝔓³¹ · 𝔓³² · 𝔓³³ · 𝔓³⁴ · 𝔓³⁵ · 𝔓³⁶ · 𝔓³⁷ · 𝔓³⁸ · 𝔓³⁹ · 𝔓⁴⁰ · 𝔓⁴¹ · 𝔓⁴² · 𝔓⁴³ · 𝔓⁴⁴ · 𝔓⁴⁵ · 𝔓⁴⁶ · 𝔓⁴⁷ · 𝔓⁴⁸ · 𝔓⁴⁹ · 𝔓⁵⁰ · 𝔓⁵¹ · 𝔓⁵² · 𝔓⁵³ · 𝔓⁵⁴ · 𝔓⁵⁵ · 𝔓⁵⁶ · 𝔓⁵⁷ · 𝔓⁵⁸ · 𝔓⁵⁹ · 𝔓⁶⁰ · 𝔓⁶¹ · 𝔓⁶² · 𝔓⁶³ · 𝔓⁶⁴ · 𝔓⁶⁵ · 𝔓⁶⁶ · 𝔓⁶⁷ · 𝔓⁶⁸ · 𝔓⁶⁹ · 𝔓⁷⁰ · 𝔓⁷¹ · 𝔓⁷² · 𝔓⁷³ · 𝔓⁷⁴ · 𝔓⁷⁵ · 𝔓⁷⁶ · 𝔓⁷⁷ · 𝔓⁷⁸ · 𝔓⁷⁹ · 𝔓⁸⁰ · 𝔓⁸¹ · 𝔓⁸² · 𝔓⁸³ · 𝔓⁸⁴ · 𝔓⁸⁵ · 𝔓⁸⁶ · 𝔓⁸⁷ · 𝔓⁸⁸ · 𝔓⁸⁹ · 𝔓⁹⁰ · 𝔓⁹¹ · 𝔓⁹² · 𝔓⁹³ · 𝔓⁹⁴ · 𝔓⁹⁵ · 𝔓⁹⁶ · 𝔓⁹⁷ · 𝔓⁹⁸ · 𝔓⁹⁹ · 𝔓¹⁰⁰ · 𝔓¹⁰¹ · 𝔓¹⁰² · 𝔓¹⁰³ · 𝔓¹⁰⁴ · 𝔓¹⁰⁵ · 𝔓¹⁰⁶ · 𝔓¹⁰⁷ · 𝔓¹⁰⁸ · 𝔓¹⁰⁹ · 𝔓¹¹⁰ · 𝔓¹¹¹ · 𝔓¹¹² · 𝔓¹¹³ · 𝔓¹¹⁴ · 𝔓¹¹⁵ · 𝔓¹¹⁶ · 𝔓¹¹⁷ · 𝔓¹¹⁸ · 𝔓¹¹⁹ · 𝔓¹²⁰ · 𝔓¹²¹ · 𝔓¹²² · 𝔓¹²³ · 𝔓¹²⁴ · 𝔓¹²⁵ · 𝔓¹²⁶ · 𝔓¹²⁷ · 𝔓¹²⁸ · 𝔓¹²⁹ · 𝔓¹³⁰ · 𝔓¹³¹ · 𝔓¹³² · 𝔓¹³³ · 𝔓¹³⁴ · 𝔓¹³⁵ · 𝔓¹³⁶ · 𝔓¹³⁷ · 𝔓¹³⁸ · 𝔓¹³⁹ · 𝔓¹⁴⁰ ·