The Johannine Comma

[SyCarl]

What if the official Catholic on the Johannine Comma, that is, the true content of 1 John 5:7-8? The Douhay Rheims reads:

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)

The Comma is put in bold.

The New American Bible reads:

So there are three that testify, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord.
(1 John 5:7-8)

The Comma is omitted. What is the official position?

 

[Mannyfit75]

What if the official Catholic on the Johannine Comma, that is, the true content of 1 John 5:7-8? The Douhay Rheims reads:

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)

The Comma is put in bold.

The New American Bible reads:

**So there are three that testify, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord.
(1 John 5:7-8) **

The Comma is omitted. What is the official position?

I check my St. Ignatius RSV Bible Second Edition:

It reads,

There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agrees.

There actually isn’t a teaching or position of the Church. It is left to Scripture scholars. The copies we have don’t even have commas. I do wonder why the translation differ from each one. How does the KJV and NIV Bible write it as?

 

[SyCarl]

The King James Version contains it. The New International Version puts it in a footnote.

 

[Turtullian]

The Church confesses that the Johnanine comma and the longer ending of Mark as canonical.

 

[Ghosty]

The Johannine Comma doesn’t exist in the oldest manuscripts, and is clearly an addition. As we’ve aquired more ancient versions, we’ve ommitted it.

It’s not a matter of “official” Church teaching, but simply good Scripture translation.

Peace and God bless!

 

[SyCarl]

The Church confesses that the Johnanine comma and the longer ending of Mark as canonical.

If it is confessed as canonical, why would it be excluded from all the modern Catholic translations. It is not even noted as a footnote as it is in many other versions.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Comma, periods, chapters and verse were not added until the medieval period. The original manuscript does not have those.

 

[SyCarl]

The Johannie Comma does not refer to punctuation, it refers to the phrase “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. And there are three that give testimony on earth:” which is omitted from most modern Bibles.

 

[Turtullian]

The Johannie Comma does not refer to punctuation, it refers to the phrase “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. And there are three that give testimony on earth:” which is omitted from most modern Bibles.

The NAB as a bible is not an approved translation. The Nab used in the liturgy with modifications from the holy see is. We have yet to see a publication of the revised NAB as used in the liturgy.

 

[SyCarl]

The NAB as a bible is not an approved translation. The Nab used in the liturgy with modifications from the holy see is. We have yet to see a publication of the revised NAB as used in the liturgy.

The copy of the NAB I have bears the Impimatur of John Cardinal Heenan. It is also the English version posted on the Vatican’s own website. How then can you say it is not approved?

 

[lak611]

The NAB as a bible is not an approved translation. The Nab used in the liturgy with modifications from the holy see is. We have yet to see a publication of the revised NAB as used in the liturgy.

As much as I dislike the NAB, it is an approved translation. It has the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat. The RNAB used for the lectionary is modified for the lectionary. The text of the Bible is not the same as the text of the lectionary, but the Bible (without modifications for the lectionary) is approved (just not for use in the lectionary).

 

[batteddy]

The Church confesses that the Johnanine comma and the longer ending of Mark as canonical.

I agree. This has been defined. They are canonical scripture. It is not a matter of translation or good scripture scholarship, that is the height of Modernism in the most precise sense.

They may have been added later, fine. Still, we treat them as inspired additions, even as we treat the septuagint additions to Daniel and expansions of Esther as inspired. Even though much of Scripture, especially the Old Testament, probably went through processes of editing and combining and evolution as they were initially transmitted.

But the Church has decided on the ultimate and final inspired version, and it contains the Comma, and the Longer Ending to Mark.

it is an approved translation

That doesnt mean it’s infallible. I don’t think it contains overt heresy, but it is a terribly deficient translation, with modernist footnotes based on the condemned historico-critical method of exegegis.

The New Vulgate does not contain it either, which is why I think the original Vulgate is still the surest source to be trusted.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The Vulgate is free from error.

The real question is is the comma from the ancient Vulgate or not.

I wish it were. I don’t know if it was or not.

The Nova Vulgata doesn’t believe it was.

That is not definitive but it is one voice that carries a little bit of weight.

 

[mmortal03]

If it is confessed as canonical, why would it be excluded from all the modern Catholic translations. It is not even noted as a footnote as it is in many other versions.

Ditto. If it isn’t even in the Neo Vulgata, what gives here?

 

[thistle]

What if the official Catholic on the Johannine Comma, that is, the true content of 1 John 5:7-8? The Douhay Rheims reads:

The Comma is put in bold.

The New American Bible reads:

The Comma is omitted. What is the official position?

Excuse my ignorance but what comma are you talking about? What word is it supposed to be after??

 

[littleone]

What if the official Catholic on the Johannine Comma, that is, the true content of 1 John 5:7-8? The Douhay Rheims reads:

I can only say that as the spirit leads here, what was writen in bold (commer) is related to the spirit of God as you will notice and the flesh is not because it relates to the carnal.
God bless
littleone

 

[mmortal03]

Excuse my ignorance but what comma are you talking about? What word is it supposed to be after??

To everyone, a “comma” is a classical rhetorical Greek term defined as a short clause, something less than a colon (also a classical rhetorical term), originally denoted by comma marks. The word “comma” comes directly from the Greek komma (κόμμα), which means something cut off or a short clause. It originally referred to what was being separated by the punctuation mark, the comma mark, and not the other way around.

 

[porthos11]

The Church confesses that the Johnanine comma and the longer ending of Mark as canonical.

No to the first, yes to the second.

It’s most accepted now in Scripture circles that the Comma doesn’t belong there. The last official Church pronouncement on this came in 1927 from Pope Pius XI, who kept the Comma open to dispute.

The Church, however has accepted John 7:53-8:11 and the longer Markan ending as canonical. The same status doesn’t apply to the Comma.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

What if the official Catholic on the Johannine Comma, that is, the true content of 1 John 5:7-8? The Douhay Rheims reads:

The Comma is put in bold.

The New American Bible reads:

The Comma is omitted. What is the official position?

There is an early church father, who’s quote of I John 5 agrees with the NAB. Textual commentaries on the NT, agree that JC is an addition due to a marginal note that made its way into the text.

It’s inclusion or exclusion depends if the translators are using the Majority Text or Westcott and Hort Greek compilations.

 

[lak611]

There is an early church father, who’s quote of I John 5 agrees with the NAB. Textual commentaries on the NT, agree that JC is an addition due to a marginal note that made its way into the text.

It’s inclusion or exclusion depends if the translators are using the Majority Text or Westcott and Hort Greek compilations.

Do you know all the translations that use the Majority Text and all of the translations that use the Westcott and Hort Greek compilations?