Cyprian & the heavenly witnesses (Daniel Wallace & Martin Shue articles) - Christian Discussion Forums

Jim1 · 12-02-2009

If there are a few Latin manuscripts that show "et tres unum sunt" in the Comma, they are dated after the time of Cyprian, aren't they? When are they dated?

The fact remains that most, if not all, of the Latin manuscripts show "et tres unum sunt" as belonging to 1 John 5:8, not to the Comma, and that Cyprian does not quote "Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus" from the Comma.

So there remains no basis for concluding that Cyprian is quoting from the Comma.

The fact remains that Trinitarians did interpret "to pneuma kai to udwr kai to aima" (the Spirit and the water and the Blood) in the Greek text in 1 John 5:8 and "spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis" (Spirit and water and Blood) in the Latin text in 1 John 5:8 to be symbolic of the Trinity. Eugenius certainly did in his letter dated 1780.

What Cyprian actually, literally states is consistent with this symbolic interpretation of 1 John 5:8.

For all we know, Cyprian's Trinitarian interpretation of 1 John 5:8 may be the basis for the Johannine Comma subsequently being added to the text, making Cyprian the ultimate father of the Comma, which is why pro-Comma enthusiasts incorrectly think that Cyprian is referring to the Comma, when in fact he is merely expressing the Trinitarian interpretation that he is imposing on 1 John 5:8 (the basis for adding the Comma to the text).

In other words, whereas Cyprian did not quote the Comma, his Trinitarian interpretation of 1 John 5:8 did inspire the Comma's subsequent addition to the text.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

12-02-2009	#6
Jim1 Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 36 Reputation: 10	If there are a few Latin manuscripts that show "et tres unum sunt" in the Comma, they are dated after the time of Cyprian, aren't they? When are they dated? The fact remains that most, if not all, of the Latin manuscripts show "et tres unum sunt" as belonging to 1 John 5:8, not to the Comma, and that Cyprian does not quote "Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus" from the Comma. So there remains no basis for concluding that Cyprian is quoting from the Comma. The fact remains that Trinitarians did interpret "to pneuma kai to udwr kai to aima" (the Spirit and the water and the Blood) in the Greek text in 1 John 5:8 and "spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis" (Spirit and water and Blood) in the Latin text in 1 John 5:8 to be symbolic of the Trinity. Eugenius certainly did in his letter dated 1780. What Cyprian actually, literally states is consistent with this symbolic interpretation of 1 John 5:8. For all we know, Cyprian's Trinitarian interpretation of 1 John 5:8 may be the basis for the Johannine Comma subsequently being added to the text, making Cyprian the ultimate father of the Comma, which is why pro-Comma enthusiasts incorrectly think that Cyprian is referring to the Comma, when in fact he is merely expressing the Trinitarian interpretation that he is imposing on 1 John 5:8 (the basis for adding the Comma to the text). In other words, whereas Cyprian did not quote the Comma, his Trinitarian interpretation of 1 John 5:8 did inspire the Comma's subsequent addition to the text.