Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Question about 1 John 5: 6-8
#9
From <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08435a.htm#section1">http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08435a.htm#section1</a><!-- m -->


Integrity
The only part of the letter concerning the authenticity and canonicity whereof there is serious question is the famous passage of the three witnesses: "And there are three who give testimony (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. And there are three that give testimony on earth): the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one" (1 John 5:7-8). Throughout the past three hundred years, effort has been wade to expunge from our Clementine Vulgate edition of canonical Scripture the words that are bracketed. Let us examine the facts of the case.

Greek manuscripts
The disputed part is found in no uncial Greek manuscripts and in only four rather recent cursives -- one of the fifteenth and three of the sixteenth century. No Greek epistolary manuscript contains the passage.

Versions
No Syriac manuscript of any family -- Peshito, Philoxenian, or Harklean -- has the three witnesses; and their presence in the printed Syriac Gospels is due to translation from the Vulgate. So too, the Coptic manuscripts -- both Sahidic and Bohairic -- have no trace of the disputed part, nor have the Ethiopic manuscripts which represent Greek influence through the medium of Coptic. The Armenian manuscripts, which favour the reading of the Vulgate, are admitted to represent a Latin influence which dates from the twelfth century; early Armenian manuscripts are against the Latin reading. Of the Itala or Old Latin manuscripts, only two have our present reading of the three witnesses: Codex Monacensis (q) of the sixth or seventh century; and the Speculum (m), an eighth or ninth century manuscript which gives many quotations from the New Testament. Even the Vulgate, in the majority of its earliest manuscripts, is without the passage in question. Witnesses to the canonicity are: the Bible of Theodulph (eighth century) in the National Library of Paris; Codex Cavensis (ninth century), the best representative of the Spanish type of text: Toletanus (tenth century); and the majority of Vulgate manuscripts after the twelfth century. There was some dispute as to the canonicity of the three witnesses as early as the sixth century: for the preface to the Catholic Epistles in Codex Fuldensis (A.D. 541-546) complains about the omission of this passage from some of the Latin versions.

--Catholic Encyclopedia

So yes, Akhi Rafa, I checked.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Question about 1 John 5: 6-8 - by ograabe - 10-06-2008, 04:25 AM
Re: Question about 1 John 5: 6-8 - by abudar2000 - 10-06-2008, 11:08 PM
Re: Question about 1 John 5: 6-8 - by judge - 10-08-2008, 12:30 AM
Re: Question about 1 John 5: 6-8 - by ograabe - 10-08-2008, 04:05 PM
Re: Question about 1 John 5: 6-8 - by ograabe - 10-08-2008, 04:52 PM
Re: Question about 1 John 5: 6-8 - by abudar2000 - 10-08-2008, 05:42 PM
Re: Question about 1 John 5: 6-8 - by Andrew Gabriel Roth - 10-08-2008, 05:45 PM
Re: Question about 1 John 5: 6-8 - by Paul Younan - 10-08-2008, 10:18 PM
Re: Question about 1 John 5: 6-8 - by ograabe - 10-09-2008, 06:25 PM
Re: Question about 1 John 5: 6-8 - by positron - 10-16-2008, 03:42 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)