Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Question about 1 John 5: 6-8
#1
Rarely do I find a Peshitta text that looks questionable, but the classical Greek version of 1 John 5: 6-8 looks best to me.

According to the ancient Byzantine Greek text of the Greek Orthodox Church:
6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

This seems to have good parallelism and completeness!

The Greek Alexandrian Minority text has:

6. This one is the one having come by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not by the water only but by the water and by the blood, and the Spirit is the one giving testimony because the Spirit is the truth.
7 Because there are three giving testimony.
8. The Spirit and the water and the blood, all three are for one testimony.

According to Bauscher's Peshitto translation:
6. This is he who came by water and blood, Jesus The Messiah; it was not by water only, but by water and blood.
7. And The Spirit testifies because The Spirit is the truth.
8. And there are three testifying: The Spirit and the water and the blood, and the three of them are in one.

In his 1957 translation of the Peshitta Lamsa has:

6 This is he who came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ, not by water only, but by water and blood.
7 And the Spirit testifies that that very Spirit is the truth,
8 And there are three to bear witness, the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three are one.

Earlier Lamsa was apparently uncertain about the Peshitta version and essentially admits it by noting in his 1940 Edition in a footnote that he merged verses 6 and 7 and inserted the King James version of verse 7:

7. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father the Word, and the Holy Ggost: and these three ar one.

[b]What's going on here?[/b]
Otto
Reply
#2
shlomo Otto,

ograabe Wrote:Rarely do I find a Peshitta text that looks questionable, but the classical Greek version of 1 John 5: 6-8 looks best to me.

According to the ancient Byzantine Greek text of the Greek Orthodox Church:
6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

This seems to have good parallelism and completeness!

The Greek Alexandrian Minority text has:

6. This one is the one having come by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not by the water only but by the water and by the blood, and the Spirit is the one giving testimony because the Spirit is the truth.
7 Because there are three giving testimony.
8. The Spirit and the water and the blood, all three are for one testimony.

According to Bauscher's Peshitto translation:
6. This is he who came by water and blood, Jesus The Messiah; it was not by water only, but by water and blood.
7. And The Spirit testifies because The Spirit is the truth.
8. And there are three testifying: The Spirit and the water and the blood, and the three of them are in one.

In his 1957 translation of the Peshitta Lamsa has:

6 This is he who came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ, not by water only, but by water and blood.
7 And the Spirit testifies that that very Spirit is the truth,
8 And there are three to bear witness, the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three are one.

Earlier Lamsa was apparently uncertain about the Peshitta version and essentially admits it by noting in his 1940 Edition in a footnote that he merged verses 6 and 7 and inserted the King James version of verse 7:

7. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father the Word, and the Holy Ggost: and these three ar one.

[b]What's going on here?[/b]
Otto

I think the Greek Byzantine Text's reading of (7) is an elaboration on (8) and not part of the original reading. By elaboration, it would seem that they wanted to clarify (8), and moved the true (7) to the end of (6).
So (7) is an example of Targuming (aka paraphrasing) in Greek of the Aramaic.

This is just my opinion!

push bashlomo,
keefa-morun
Reply
#3
ograabe Wrote:What's going on here?
Otto

Looks to me like a later addition to the text for theological reasons. Specific ideas about the trinity (not spelt out in scripture ) were added to the text.
Reply
#4
Shlama all--

I will hold back comment on Lamsa per se. But let me just say that my NIV study bible has a note next to 1 John 5:8 that says "not in any mss before the sixteenth century." What's more in at least one of my Lamsa editions he talks about this verse being "carried over from the King James" or words to that effect.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#5
As I noted in my original posting, Lamsa's Peshitta translation of the whole Bible does not have that Byzantine verse 7. Only his 1940 edition has the KJV version of verse 7, and he clearly states that fact in the footnote. In 1940 his publisherer may have thought this KJV verse was essential.

But we can't blame the Textus Receptus or the KJV since th Greek Orthodox Church has retained that verse in its honored Byztantine Greek version.

Otto
Reply
#6
Here is the early 5th Century Vulgate version in Latin by the great scholar St. Jerome:

6 ?? hic est qui venit per aquam et sanguinem Iesus Christus non in aqua solum sed in aqua et sanguine et Spiritus est qui testificatur quoniam Christus est veritas
7 quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant
8 Spiritus et aqua et sanguis et tres unum sunt


Please, will some Latin scholar translate for us?

I would thinkt that Jerome knew about the Peshitta text. It looks like he quoted the Peshitta to me (except for the verse numbering)!!!!

Otto
Reply
#7
Shlama Akhi Otto,

Aleph, A, B, Vulgate and the Peshitta and even Old Syriac omit "in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (8) And there are three witness bearers on earth."

I think there is plenty of "blame" to go around since Lamsa was not translating from the Byzantine, and further, even when Lamsa did make references to Peshitta differences, Harper Collins supressed his notes and to this day it is the HC version that most folks are familar with. The 1998 Lamsa re-issue though goes a long way to correcting much of these problems but I am pretty sure for every 1 of those bought, the older more problematic version has sold probably a hundred. So the "blame" in my view is with Harper Collins for the most part, although Lamsa is not totally without responsibility either.

I think it is very important to do what I did in Mari and have a note IN BASE TEXT that says, "Verse 7 is not existent in the Peshitta". It's okay to talk about variant readings and omissions, but we should never obscure or make it less apparent to the reader what is in the source text and what is not. Lamsa catered to a KJV Protestant crowd owing to the realities of his time.

Regardless as to how anyone else here may agree or disagree with the theology, the mss record is 100% clear. This is a LATE reading. If you translate the Peshitta, then deal with what is there and what is not. I do refer to the variant reading but in the footnotes.

This was also done by Murdock who put [] around the verse and said "wanting in most mss". You asked what is going on and that is my best answer.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#8
shlomo Otto,

ograabe Wrote:Here is the early 5th Century Vulgate version in Latin by the great scholar St. Jerome:

6 ?? hic est qui venit per aquam et sanguinem Iesus Christus non in aqua solum sed in aqua et sanguine et Spiritus est qui testificatur quoniam Christus est veritas
7 quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant
8 Spiritus et aqua et sanguis et tres unum sunt


Please, will some Latin scholar translate for us?

I would thinkt that Jerome knew about the Peshitta text. It looks like he quoted the Peshitta to me (except for the verse numbering)!!!!

Otto

I'm no Latin expert, but here goes:

6 hic (This) est (is he) qui (who) venit (came) per (by) aquam (water) et (and) sanguinem (blood) Iesus (Jesus) Christus (Christ) non (not) in (in) aqua (water) solum (only) sed (but) in (in) aqua (water) et (and) sanguine (blood) et (and) Spiritus (Spirit) est (is he) qui (who) testificatur (testifies) quoniam (since) Christus (Christ) est (is) veritas (the truth)
7 quia (because) tres (three) sunt (they are) qui (who) testimonium (give testimony) dant (in)
8 Spiritus (Spirit) et (and) aqua (water) et (and) sanguis (blood) et (and) tres (three) unum (one) sunt (they are)

push bashlomo,
keefa-morun
Reply
#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
#10
Shlama Akhi Rafa,

No, I would not say it is a reason not to read the Vulgate. I think the Vulgate is very important in the overall field of biblical studies. I recommend reading it. I just don't recommend givingit ultimate authority. That's another question.

And Jerome's familarity with the Peshitta (if such was the case) has nothing to do with his ability to make a contradictory reading. He could just as easily admit knowing the reading and disregard it as spurious.

Both these considerations however are not my main point. We were talking about Lamsa and allowing a reading in base text as if it were in the original Eastern Peshitta. It is NOT. Again, study ALL variants in ALL languages. Just don't put it in BASE TEXT.

And also, be true to source text. If I were translating the Vulgate then reagrdless as to how I felt about a reading, if it were in the original Latin that is what I would go with. Similarly when translating Peshitta, Lamsa in my view should have been more forthcoming in this instance (or Harper Collins, take your pick) as to what constitutes source text and what doesn't. The reader, of course, is free to decide for themselves which reading they prefer, but there should be NO DOUBT where all the candidate readings come from.

But also in Lamsa's defense is a fact that most Bibles done in his era did not have this need for precision for their believers in churches throughout the US and Europe. The textual experts published their academic papers (generally speaking) and the Bible companies just put out texts with limited footnotes and supplemental materials. The exception would be critical editions in Greek or Hebrew or whatever, or Dead Sea Scrolls research. The overall trend though that I saw in Western Christianity from this time was sort of saying, "just give me THE ONE TEXT in basic English and don't make me worry about how this or that mss reads".

Now, I admit I have not done a precise scientific survey on the above. I do however have more than 100 versions of the Bible from diverse periods on my bookshelves and most of them are Christian-based. I really don't see a strong trending to things like Thompson Chains and full concordances COUPLED WITH THE TEXTS and detailed mss footnotes until about the early 1960's. Prior to that, when Lamsa was doing his work, the other trends that I mentioned seem to hold sway. That's my opinion, not to take anything away from Lamsa himself.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth
Reply
#11
Akhi Rafa,

Rarely have I read such a bunch of nonsense. None of the above is true at all. Yeah, the CoE (in Assyria~Babylonia~Persia) started with Nestorius (a Greek Patriarch of Constantinople!), sure! In 431 AD, yeah. The Council of Mar Isaac in 410 was a fake, I suppose. Or that of Mar Papa in the AD 314 (Synod of Seleucia) - I suppose that was started by Nestorius' great-great grandfather, in Babylon of all places!

Secondly, Lamsa really had about as much to do with the CoE as did Nestorius.

And thirdly, of course we don't teach two "persons" in Christ - we don't even use the word "Persons". We use Qnuma.

What a bunch of uneducated garbage!

+Shamasha

PS - Oh yeah, we despise the Greeks because of what they did to a fellow Greek Patriarch, whom we never even met! (?????) <!-- s:rockedover: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/rockdover.gif" alt=":rockedover:" title="Rocked Over" /><!-- s:rockedover: -->
Reply
#12
I am not sure how Nestorius got into this discussion, but according to the book "The Oldest Christian People" by William Emhardt and George Lamsa, "The term Nestorians is a nickname given to a Christian community which had been in existence four humdred years before Nestorius was born."

"The Oldest Christian People" by William Emhardt and George Lamsa was published in 1926 and was republished by AMS Press, New York, 1970. This book shows Lamsa' s joint association with the Church of the East and the Anglican Church.

Otto
Reply
#13
I read somewhere that 1 John 5:7 has existed since 200 AD but upon checking with Peshitta Aramaic NT, there is no elaboration about Father, The Word and the Holy Spirit; the three are One.

Quote
1 John 5: 7 has a very long history.
We find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s. Here is a useful timeline of references to this verse:

200 AD Tertullian quoted the verse in his Apology, Against Praxeas
250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)
350 AD Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]
350 AD Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]
350 AD Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione
398 AD Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism

Unquote

Can anyone elaborate the words used by Tertullian against Praxeas in 200 AD? If the verse was there in the scripture, then one may wonder why Peshitta does not have the emphasis on "The Word" which is related to John 1:1-2 that is referring to Lord Yeshua.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.

Now "The Word" or "Logos" in Greek or "manifestation" in Aramaic refers to none other than Lord Yeshua Himself. So to rephrase John 1:1-2. it is just wonderful to know that Lord Yeshua is "Eloha manifests in the Flesh".

John 1:1 In the beginning was Yeshua (the Word), and Yeshua (the Word) was with God, and Yeshua (the Word) was God.
John 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.

<!-- s:onfire: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/onfire.gif" alt=":onfire:" title="On Fire" /><!-- s:onfire: -->
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)