Trinity

[Laudate_Dominum]

Here is a protestant article on the issue if you don't believe me:
[url="http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1186"]http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1186[/url]

another informed protestant article on the subject:
[url="http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html"]http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html[/url]

Here is a wikipedia entry on the issue:
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum[/url]

If you find the textual critical evidence to be suspect (I think its quite clear) then I would ask you to explain the fact that this passage is nowhere to be found in the Trinitarian controversies of the early Church. This alone kind of says it all.

Another protestant article that tries to provide counter arguments as well:
[url="http://www.tektonics.org/af/comma.html"]http://www.tektonics.org/af/comma.html[/url]

Here is an attempted defense of the Johannine Comma (its weak and doesn't do justice to the evidence but at least its something I suppose):
[url="http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/1john5n7.html"]http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/1john5n7.html[/url]

[Laudate_Dominum]

This is from Catholic Answers:
[quote]A: The Johannine Gloss or Johannine Comma, as it is more commonly known, is an interpolated passage which appears in 1 John 5:7-8, shown here in brackets: "For there are three who bear witness [in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth]: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three are one."

The New Catholic Encyclopedia explains that "the bracketed phrases appear in the [Vulgate] version of the Bible, the official version of the Sacred Scriptures for the Latin Rite of the Church. Among scholars these phrases are commonly called the 'Johannine Comma.' On the basis of manuscript evidence scholars seriously question their authenticity. The Comma is absent in all the ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament with the exception of four rather recent manuscripts that date from the thirteenth to the sixteenth centuries.

"The Comma is lacking in such ancient Oriental versions as the Peshitta, Philoxenian, Coptic, Ethiopic, and Armenian. While the majority of the Latin manuscripts of 1 John do contain the Comma, the earlier and better manuscripts, both the Old Latin and the Vulgate versions, lack it. The earliest manuscript in which it appears dates from the ninth century. '

"The Fathers of the East do not quote or refer to the Johannine Comma in their Christological controversies. This omission indicates that the Comma was not part of the biblical text of their time, for they surely would have used it had it been in the text. Some fourth-century Latin writers, while referring to 1 John 5:8b and giving this a Trinitarian interpretation, failed to give any indication that they knew of the existence of the Comma as a scriptural passage.

"Due to the overcritical spirit that was prevalent in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the Church considered it necessary in its decree of the Holy Office of January 13,1897 to caution its scholars against rashly rejecting or doubting the authenticity of this passage. However, in a decree of June 2, .1927, the Holy Office clarified its earlier statement in declaring that scholars may be inclined to doubt or reject the authenticity of the Johannine Comma subject to any forthcoming judgment of the Church. No scholar any longer accepts its authenticity. But even though the Comma is not a biblical passage, it is a firm witness to the fact that the faith of the [early] Christian was fully Trinitarian." [/quote]

Here is what our dear radtrad Robert Sungenis has to say about it:
[quote]R. Sungenis: This is a tough issue because there is merit on both sides. Just to shed some quick light on it for you, there is one edition of the Vulgate (the Wordsworth edition, 1899) that does not have the Johannine Comma. The Clementine Vulgate is the one that contains the Comma. Still, the Clementine edition is the earlier one, by at least two centuries.
Here is the problem. In the 1800s archeologists found a number of new Greek manuscripts of the NT. Two of the major finds are Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. These codices disagreed in some minor places with the Received Greek text from the Middle Ages.

Since Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were judged to be from the 4-5th centuries, they were often given more authoritative weight than some of the Middle Age manuscripts (although the Middle Age manuscripts were copies of copies of copies, etc, and thus they had authority too, but not as much authority. So for a while, everyone was revising their Bibles in the late 1800s and early-mid 1900s based on the supposed authority of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. So you will see a lot of the Bibles which were translated at this time (1880-1980) be somewhat free-wheeling with their changes in the Greek text, the RSV included. This is the "science" of Textual Criticism.
But then a few chinks were found in the armour. Papyri fragments that were discovered in the 1900s, and which are dated earlier than Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, showed discrepancies not only between the papyri and the two codices, but they also began to discover discrepancies between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus themselves. So the brakes were begriming to be put on the revision of Bibles, and more weight was given to the Vulgate and Received Greek Texts.

Also, they were also finding that the papyri evidence agreed more with the Received Greek text (from the Middle Ages) than Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
With 1 John 5:7, however, the problem is a little more difficult, since many of the Middle Age Greek manuscripts agree with Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in excising the Johannine Comma from the text. Moreover, there are over a dozen Early Fathers who, as we know from their quotes of 1 John 5:7, did not contain the Comma in their letters or manuscripts (e.g., Ireneaus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine and many more), and there are very few Fathers (John Cassian and Fulgentius) who have the Comma. Many of the Fathers who didn't have the Comma were very early in the Church's history.

Interestingly enough, three Middle Age manuscripts do not have the Comma in the biblical text but they include it in the margin, so we know that everyone was having a problem with this verse. Also, the Byzantine Lectionary, one Syriac version and one Coptic version of 1 John 5:7 do not contain the Comma.

So with all due respect, the probability that the Comma is an authentic part of the original Greek text is slim. Still, the translator should always make a footnote giving the alternative text in the margin, since no one can be absolutely sure. In our CASB of 1 John, we will have the Clementine Vulgate's rendering, but we will make a footnote that some versions and Greek manuscripts do not have the Comma.
[/quote]

[Laudate_Dominum]

Paladin,

If you were serious you might want to peep this for starters:
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/theology/trinity.htm"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/theology/trinity.htm[/url]

Oh, and part of the reason why I'm not particularly bothered by such things as the 'comma' issue is because I don't believe that Christianity is reducible to a book in the first place. I'm not a sola scriptura type of Christian.
Christ established a Church, and while the Scriptures happen to be at the heart of the deposit of faith, I don't see them in isolation from Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium.

It is not unheard of for a radtrad (or someone of similar stripe) to assert that near the end of the 19th century the Holy Office definitively forbid Catholics to even so much as question the validity of the 'Johannine Comma'. This opinion is false and is based on a misapplication of the actual statement. So that there is no doubt, here is the clarification from the Holy Office herself:

[quote]
2198 To the question: "Whether it can safely be denied, or at least called into doubt that the text of St. John in the first epistle, chapter 5, verse 7, is authentic, which read as follows: 'And there are three that give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one?' "---the response was given on January 13, 1897: In the negative. At this response there arose on June 2, 1927, the following declaration, at first given privately by the same Sacred Congregation and afterwards repeated many times, which was made a part of public law in EB n. 121 by authority of the Holy Office itself:

"This decree was passed to check the audacity of private teachers who attributed to themselves the right either of rejecting entirely the authenticity of the Johannine comma, or at least of calling it into question by their own final judgment. But it was not meant at all to prevent Catholic writers from investigating the subject more fully and, after weighing the arguments accurately on both sides, with that and temperance which the gravity of the subject requires, from inclining toward an opinion in opposition to its authenticity, provided they professed that they were ready to abide by the judgment of the Church, to which the duty was delegated by Jesus Christ not only of interpreting Holy Scripture but also of guarding it faithfully." - Declaration of the Holy Office, June 2, 1927
[/quote]

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1064598' date='Sep 16 2006, 11:02 PM']
what version of the Bible do you use? I didn't know that modern translations even had that verse.
[/quote]


Douay-Rheims isn't exactly a new translation . "And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one."

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1064770' date='Sep 17 2006, 01:06 AM']Here is what our dear radtrad Robert Sungenis has to say about it:
[/quote]

Oh poor Robert... When will they learn?...

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1064902' date='Sep 17 2006, 02:10 AM']
Douay-Rheims isn't exactly a new translation . "And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one."
Oh poor Robert... When will they learn?...
[/quote]
So I take it you consider the verse to be valid? I'm not going to argue the matter, its more something for scholars to debate, but most translations these days omit that passage or put it in the footnotes.

It's a theologically orthodox statement, and one might consider it a part of tradition, but I doubt it was part of the original letter of St. John.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1064909' date='Sep 17 2006, 03:16 AM']
So I take it you consider the verse to be valid? I'm not going to argue the matter, its more something for scholars to debate, but most translations these days omit that passage or put it in the footnotes.

It's a theologically orthodox statement, and one might consider it a part of tradition, but I doubt it was part of the original letter of St. John.
[/quote]

I'm not going to put myself in a position to judge what does and does not belong in Scripture. If the Douay has it in there, I accept it as Scripture. If I don't accept that, what is stopping me from doubting other Scriptures as actually being Scripture as well?

If this verse was anonymously added in by future translators or however it would have made it in there, then what is stopping many other verses from being mere "additions" and "footnotes"? How can we trust that all of Scripture is inspired if we doubt that such an important verse was not part of Scripture?

It would also kind of take away from the whole idea that Scripture is considered inspired and from God in all matters relating to faith and doctrine. If this isn't a matter of faith and doctrine of the highest importance I'm not sure what is.

Edited September 17, 2006 by goldenchild17

[N/A Gone]

you mean scripture does not clearly answer something? So we cannot believe or teach it?

what about the concept of sola scripture? that is not in scripture. Or Sola fida, or OSAS, or alter calls, or protestant eccesiology. Or tulip or communion in little plastic cups with grape juice or many other commonly accepted protestant practices and theology. Just admit. sola scripture died. You just follow a different eccesiology and tradition.

[goldenchild17]

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Sola Scriptura??? Where'd that come from? Who said anything about the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura?

Do you honestly think Catholicism doesn't teach the infallibility of Scripture?

Edited September 18, 2006 by goldenchild17

[N/A Gone]

I know the church teaches that scripture has authority. But we believe that because the bible as a historical book speaks of a church with authority that in turn uses that authority to say that the bible has authority. But from the bible itself we do not see sola scripture. and sola scripture and scripture prima are two different things.