Johannine Comma and Richard Simon - Revision history

Nick at 08:50, 22 July 2026

2026-07-22T08:50:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:50, 22 July 2026
Line 20:		Line 20:
	:Yet it is hard to find among the Greeks any manuscript copies that have that passage; I speak not only of the Ancients, but also of those of the latter times. ''Erasmus'' alleged that the Greeks had their books more correct than the Latin copies, but he is mistaken, as shall appear by what follows in this discourse. It is much more probable, that that doctrinal point was formerly written in the margin, by way of scholium or note, but afterward inserted into the text by those who transcribed the copies. Such were my thoughts when I perused some of the Greek editions; and there is no less probability, that it was supplied after the same manner in the ancient Latin copies; which nevertheless, happened not until after S. ''Jerome's'' time, who is not the author of that addition, which ''Socinus'', next to ''Erasmus'', had laid to his charge.		:Yet it is hard to find among the Greeks any manuscript copies that have that passage; I speak not only of the Ancients, but also of those of the latter times. ''Erasmus'' alleged that the Greeks had their books more correct than the Latin copies, but he is mistaken, as shall appear by what follows in this discourse. It is much more probable, that that doctrinal point was formerly written in the margin, by way of scholium or note, but afterward inserted into the text by those who transcribed the copies. Such were my thoughts when I perused some of the Greek editions; and there is no less probability, that it was supplied after the same manner in the ancient Latin copies; which nevertheless, happened not until after S. ''Jerome's'' time, who is not the author of that addition, which ''Socinus'', next to ''Erasmus'', had laid to his charge.

	:After the most diligent search in the King's Library, and that of Mr. ''Colbert'', in which there are a great many good manuscript volumes, I found no copy that had that passage in it, though I read seven of them in the Royal Library, six whereof are marked 1885. 2247. 2248. 2870. 2871. 2872. (Margin: Codd. MSS. Bibl. Reg.) Some of the manuscripts have notes; but no scholiast or annotator does make mention of that passage, neither have I found it in five manuscript copies belonging to Mr. ''Colbert'''s Library, which are marked 871. 6123. 4785. 6584. 2844. (Margin: Codd. MSS. Bibl. Colb.) Yet some of these manuscripts are only in paper, and much later than the rest. There is also one in 16, well written, and I believe, since the impression: Yet the passage in question is not found therein, any more than in the rest of the ancient copies.		:After the most diligent search in the King's Library, and that of Mr. ''Colbert'', in which there are a great many good manuscript volumes, I found no copy that had that passage in it, though I read seven of them in the Royal Library, six whereof are marked 1885. 2247. 2248. 2870. 2871. 2872. (Margin: Codd. MSS. Bibl. Reg.) Some of the manuscripts have notes; but no scholiast or annotator does make mention of that passage, neither have I found it in five manuscript copies belonging to Mr. ''Colbert'' 's Library, which are marked 871. 6123. 4785. 6584. 2844. (Margin: Codd. MSS. Bibl. Colb.) Yet some of these manuscripts are only in paper, and much later than the rest. There is also one in 16, well written, and I believe, since the impression: Yet the passage in question is not found therein, any more than in the rest of the ancient copies.

	:I could produce yet other Greek manuscript copies which I have seen, whose various readings I observed; but that which most deserves our notice, is that in the margin of some of the King's and Mr. ''Colbert'''s copies, there are small notes set over against the said passage, which, in all likelihood have slipped afterwards into the body of the text. Take an example from the King's copy, marked 2247. Over against these words, Ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἕν τῇ γῇ, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, there is this remark, τουτέστι τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον καὶ ὁ πατήρ καὶ αὐτὸς ἑαυτου. By which we may perceive that the author of the said remark understood ''the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost'', to be signified by the Three Witnesses mentioned by S. John, ''the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood:'' And what was formerly written by way of note passed afterwards into the text, as it often falls out. In the same copy, over against these other words, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσι, this note is added, τουτέστι μία Θεότης εἷς Θεὸς, that is, ''One Deity, One God.'' That manuscript is about 500 years old, and there are but very few places therein that have notes. There is the like remark in one of the manuscripts belonging to Mr. ''Colbert'''s Library, numbered 871. For besides these words that are set in the margin, εἷς Θεὸς μία Θεότης, ''One God, One Deity;'' the scholiast has also added these, μαρτυρία τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ ἅγιοῦ Πνεῦματος, ''The testimony of God the Father, and of the Holy Ghost.''		:I could produce yet other Greek manuscript copies which I have seen, whose various readings I observed; but that which most deserves our notice, is that in the margin of some of the King's and Mr. ''Colbert'' 's copies, there are small notes set over against the said passage, which, in all likelihood have slipped afterwards into the body of the text. Take an example from the King's copy, marked 2247. Over against these words, Ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἕν τῇ γῇ, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, there is this remark, τουτέστι τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον καὶ ὁ πατήρ καὶ αὐτὸς ἑαυτου. By which we may perceive that the author of the said remark understood ''the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost'', to be signified by the Three Witnesses mentioned by S. John, ''the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood:'' And what was formerly written by way of note passed afterwards into the text, as it often falls out. In the same copy, over against these other words, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσι, this note is added, τουτέστι μία Θεότης εἷς Θεὸς, that is, ''One Deity, One God.'' That manuscript is about 500 years old, and there are but very few places therein that have notes. There is the like remark in one of the manuscripts belonging to Mr. ''Colbert'' 's Library, numbered 871. For besides these words that are set in the margin, εἷς Θεὸς μία Θεότης, ''One God, One Deity;'' the scholiast has also added these, μαρτυρία τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ ἅγιοῦ Πνεῦματος, ''The testimony of God the Father, and of the Holy Ghost.''

	:This, in my opinion, is the original of the passage in question, which it is very hard to find in the Greek manuscript copies, though at this day they read it in their version. This is much more likely than what ''Erasmus'' alleges; that the Greek copies he had occasion to inspect were much more correct than the Latin, which obliged that judicious person to omit the aforementioned passage in his first editions of the New Testament; in this he was not altogether to be blamed, not being obliged to insert in the Impression what he could not find in any of his manuscripts. He has nevertheless been charged with a design of favouring the ''Arian'' party by the omission. ''James Lopes Stunica'' has mightily accused him for his unlucky rejecting of the said passage in his edition, (''b'') supposing that the Greek copies had been corrupted in that place.		:This, in my opinion, is the original of the passage in question, which it is very hard to find in the Greek manuscript copies, though at this day they read it in their version. This is much more likely than what ''Erasmus'' alleges; that the Greek copies he had occasion to inspect were much more correct than the Latin, which obliged that judicious person to omit the aforementioned passage in his first editions of the New Testament; in this he was not altogether to be blamed, not being obliged to insert in the Impression what he could not find in any of his manuscripts. He has nevertheless been charged with a design of favouring the ''Arian'' party by the omission. ''James Lopes Stunica'' has mightily accused him for his unlucky rejecting of the said passage in his edition, (''b'') supposing that the Greek copies had been corrupted in that place.

Nick at 08:48, 22 July 2026

2026-07-22T08:48:53Z

Show changes

Nick at 08:02, 22 July 2026

2026-07-22T08:02:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:02, 22 July 2026
Line 5:		Line 5:
	His 1689 section on 1 John 5:7 is called, ''A critical history of the text of the New Testament (Book 2).		His 1689 section on 1 John 5:7 is called, ''A critical history of the text of the New Testament (Book 2).

	= A ~~CRITICAL HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT~~ (~~BOOK~~ II) =		= A Critical History of the New Testament (Book II) =

	== PART II (BOOK II) ==		== PART II (BOOK II) ==
Line 11:		Line 11:
	=== CHAPTER XVIII ===		=== CHAPTER XVIII ===

	'''A Critical Observation on a Passage in St. John's First Epistle, Chapter V, Verse 7, which is wanting in the most Greek copies, Eastern editions, and the most ancient Latin copies. The Preface to the Canonical Epistles in some Latin Bibles, under the name of St. Jerome, was not penned by that Father. It cannot be proved that St. Cyprian had the passage ~~in his copy~~ of St. John's Epistle.'''		::''A Critical Observation on a Passage in S. John's First Epistle, Chapter V, Verse 7, which is wanting in the most Greek copies, Eastern editions, and the most ancient Latin copies. The Preface to the Canonical Epistles in some Latin Bibles, under the name of S. Jerome, was not penned by that Father. It cannot be proved that S. Cyprian had the passage of S. John's Epistle in his copy.''

	The reflections which many learned men have made on that passage in the First Epistle of St. John, ~~Chapter V~~, ~~Verse~~ 7, have not discouraged me from examining it afresh, and consulting most of the Greek and Latin manuscripts that I could find about the same.		:The reflections which many learned men have made on that passage in the First Epistle of S. ''John'', Chap v, Vers. 7. have not discouraged me from examining it afresh, and consulting most of the Greek and Latin manuscripts that I could find about the same. The Greeks at this day, in their copy entitled ἀπόστολος, read (as the Latin Church) these words (''a'') ''For there are three that bear witness in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.''

	~~The Greeks today~~, ~~in their copy entitled ''Novum Testamentum''~~, ~~read (as the Latin Church) these words~~:		:::(a) Ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν· 1 Joann. c.5. v.7.
			:::Margin: 1 Joh. c.5. v.7.

	~~<blockquote>~~		:Yet it is hard to find among the Greeks any manuscript copies that have that passage; I speak not only of the Ancients, but also of those of the latter times. ''Erasmus'' alleged that the Greeks had their books more correct than the Latin copies, but he is mistaken, as shall appear by what follows in this discourse. It is much more probable, that that doctrinal point was formerly written in the margin, by way of scholium or note, but afterward inserted into the text by those who transcribed the copies. Such were my thoughts when I perused some of the Greek editions; and there is no less probability, that it was supplied after the same manner in the ancient Latin copies; which nevertheless, happened not until after S. ''Jerome's'' time, who is not the author of that addition, which ''Socinus'', next to ''Erasmus'', had laid to his charge.
	~~For there are three~~ that ~~bear witness~~ in ~~heaven:~~ the ~~Father~~, the ~~Word~~, ~~and~~ the ~~Holy Ghost~~; ~~and these three are one~~.
	~~</blockquote>~~

	~~Yet it is hard to find among the Greeks any manuscript copies that have that passage. I speak not only of the ancients, but also of those of the latter times.~~		(more to come)

	~~Erasmus alleged that the Greeks had their books~~ more ~~correct than the Latin copies, but he is mistaken, as shall appear by what follows in this discourse.~~

	~~It is much more probable that that doctrinal point was formerly written in the margin, by way of scholium or note, but afterward inserted into the text by those who transcribed the copies.~~

	Such were my thoughts when I perused some of the Greek editions; and there is no less probability that it was supplied after the same manner in the ancient Latin copies. Nevertheless, this did not happen until after St. Jerome's time, who is not the author of that addition, which Socinus, next to Erasmus, had laid to ~~his charge.~~

	==References==		==References==

Nick at 07:39, 22 July 2026

2026-07-22T07:39:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:39, 22 July 2026
Line 5:		Line 5:
	His 1689 section on 1 John 5:7 is called, ''A critical history of the text of the New Testament (Book 2).		His 1689 section on 1 John 5:7 is called, ''A critical history of the text of the New Testament (Book 2).

	= A ~~Critical History of the New Testament~~ (~~Book~~ II) =		= A CRITICAL HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (BOOK II) =

	== ~~Part~~ II ==		== PART II (BOOK II) ==

	=== ~~Chapter~~ XVIII ===		=== CHAPTER XVIII ===

	'''A Critical ~~Examination of~~ a Passage in 1 John 5:7, which is ~~absent from~~ most Greek ~~manuscripts~~, Eastern editions, and the ~~oldest~~ Latin ~~manuscripts~~. The Preface to the Canonical Epistles ~~found~~ in some Latin Bibles under the name of St. Jerome was not ~~written~~ by ~~Jerome~~. It ~~also~~ cannot be ~~proven~~ that St. Cyprian had ~~this~~ passage in his copy of 1 John.'''		'''A Critical Observation on a Passage in St. John's First Epistle, Chapter V, Verse 7, which is wanting in the most Greek copies, Eastern editions, and the most ancient Latin copies. The Preface to the Canonical Epistles in some Latin Bibles, under the name of St. Jerome, was not penned by that Father. It cannot be proved that St. Cyprian had the passage in his copy of St. John's Epistle.'''

	The ~~observations that~~ many learned men have made ~~concerning the~~ passage in ~~'''1~~ John 5:7~~'''~~ have not discouraged me from examining it ~~again~~ and consulting ~~as many~~ Greek and Latin manuscripts as I could find.		The reflections which many learned men have made on that passage in the First Epistle of St. John, Chapter V, Verse 7, have not discouraged me from examining it afresh, and consulting most of the Greek and Latin manuscripts that I could find about the same.

	~~Today, the~~ Greeks, in their copy entitled ''Novum Testamentum'', ~~read—as does~~ the Latin ~~Church—the following~~ words:		The Greeks today, in their copy entitled ''Novum Testamentum'', read (as the Latin Church) these words:

	<blockquote>		<blockquote>
Line 21:		Line 21:
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

	Yet it is ~~difficult~~ to find ~~Greek manuscripts~~ that ~~contain this~~ passage. I ~~am speaking~~ not only of the ~~ancient manuscripts~~ but also of those ~~from more recent~~ times.		Yet it is hard to find among the Greeks any manuscript copies that have that passage. I speak not only of the ancients, but also of those of the latter times.

	Erasmus ~~claimed~~ that the Greeks ~~preserved~~ their books more ~~accurately~~ than the Latin copies~~. However~~, he ~~was~~ mistaken, as ~~will become evident~~ in ~~the course of~~ this ~~discussion~~.		Erasmus alleged that the Greeks had their books more correct than the Latin copies, but he is mistaken, as shall appear by what follows in this discourse.

	It is ~~far~~ more ~~likely~~ that ~~this~~ doctrinal ~~statement~~ was ~~originally~~ written in the margin ~~as a '''~~scholium~~''' (that is~~, ~~a marginal note or commentary) and was later~~ inserted into the text by those who ~~copied~~ the ~~manuscripts.~~		It is much more probable that that doctrinal point was formerly written in the margin, by way of scholium or note, but afterward inserted into the text by those who transcribed the copies.

	~~These were my conclusions after examining several Greek editions. There is also good reason to believe that the passage entered the ancient Latin~~ copies in the same way. Even so, this did not happen until after the time of '''St. Jerome''', who was not the author of this addition, despite the accusation made against him by '''Socinus''', following Erasmus.

			Such were my thoughts when I perused some of the Greek editions; and there is no less probability that it was supplied after the same manner in the ancient Latin copies. Nevertheless, this did not happen until after St. Jerome's time, who is not the author of that addition, which Socinus, next to Erasmus, had laid to his charge.

	==References==		==References==

Nick at 07:35, 22 July 2026

2026-07-22T07:35:24Z

Show changes

Nick at 09:46, 20 July 2026

2026-07-20T09:46:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:46, 20 July 2026
Line 8:		Line 8:
	* [[Johannine Comma]]		* [[Johannine Comma]]

			{{Article Index Johannine Comma}}
	{{Donate}}		{{Donate}}

Nick at 09:42, 20 July 2026

2026-07-20T09:42:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:42, 20 July 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
			:''See also [[Johannine Comma]]'', ''[[Index of Johannine Comma articles]]'', ''[[1 John 5:7]]'', & ''[[1 John 5:8]]''.

	Richard Simon was critical of the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum. He argued that this passage was not part of the original text and was likely a later addition, based on the lack of early Greek manuscript evidence. By questioning the authenticity of this passage, Simon sought to cast doubt on the sufficiency of the received text, which the Reformers held as divinely preserved.		Richard Simon was critical of the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum. He argued that this passage was not part of the original text and was likely a later addition, based on the lack of early Greek manuscript evidence. By questioning the authenticity of this passage, Simon sought to cast doubt on the sufficiency of the received text, which the Reformers held as divinely preserved.

Nick: Created page with "Richard Simon was critical of the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum. He argued that this passage was not part of the original text and was likely a later addition, based on the lack of early Greek manuscript evidence. By questioning the authenticity of this passage, Simon sought to cast doubt on the sufficiency of the received text, which the Reformers held as divinely preserved. ==See also== * 1 John 5:7 * Johannine Comma {{Donate}}"

2026-05-16T01:18:34Z

Created page with "Richard Simon was critical of the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum. He argued that this passage was not part of the original text and was likely a later addition, based on the lack of early Greek manuscript evidence. By questioning the authenticity of this passage, Simon sought to cast doubt on the sufficiency of the received text, which the Reformers held as divinely preserved. ==See also== * 1 John 5:7 * Johannine Comma {{Donate}}"

New page

Richard Simon was critical of the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum. He argued that this passage was not part of the original text and was likely a later addition, based on the lack of early Greek manuscript evidence. By questioning the authenticity of this passage, Simon sought to cast doubt on the sufficiency of the received text, which the Reformers held as divinely preserved.

==See also==
* [[1 John 5:7]]

* [[Johannine Comma]]

{{Donate}}