[Milton-L] Johannine Comma (heavenly witnesses) comments

[Schmuel]

Hi Milton list,

Thanks to all for the five excellent responses to my Johannine Comma question.

> Jameela Lares -  
> McLachlan would be helpful. ...(EEBO) .. browse commentaries  ... Johannine epistles

Yes, although the earlier commentaries are generally better than the more recent. 
McLachlan is on my warm burner.   EEBO may not be necessary as I was able
to find the quotes in Google books (below).

> Abe - 
> Joseph M. Levine, Erasmus and the Problem of the Johannine Comma ..
> Milton .. De Doctrina in two places: CP 6.221, 244. (I.e. the Yale Complete Prose). 

Thanks, Levine I knew (but haven't read yet) the spots in De Doctrina is helpful, I ended
up finding them with "search" as well.

John Hale - (New Zealand)
> Philip Dixon "'Nice and Hot Disputes' The Doctrine of the Trinity in the Seventeenth Century" 

Thanks, good reference.  
Will look for it on a library trip.

> HANNIBAL HAMLIN 
> Scripture and Scholarship in Early Modern England (Ashgate 2006)
> Stephen D. Snobelen, "'To us there is but one God, the Father': Antitrinitarian Textual Criticism in 
> Seventeenth- and Early Eighteenth-Century England," and Rob Illiffe, "Friendly Criticism: Richard 
> Simon, John Locke, Isaac Newton and the Johannine Comma."  

Thanks, I knew about this, yet it sounds better than I realized and will have it on library agenda.

John Rumrich
> Milton discusses its textual authority in chapter five of Christian Doctrine. Here's our note to the 
> passage in the forthcoming "Complete Poetry and Essential Prose of John Milton" .... 
> "Milton’s account of 1 John 5.7 as a late variant of suspect textual authority is accurate. 
> ... generally deemed spurious and omitted in modern critical editions. Isaac Newton in 1690 would 
> likewise critique it in a manuscript he shared with John Locke but withheld from publication,
> entitled A Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture. It was first published in 1841."

Actually I found Milton's words more measured and did not see him calling the verse a "late variant",
and though he mention the textual issue it was more en passant.  See my note at the very bottom for 
a summary of Milton's notes on this.
  
Interestingly it seems that Samuel Horsley helped in the later publication of Newton's work 
even though Horsley wrote a very excellent commentary that fully accepted the heavenly witnesses.

Here are some of the notes directly from Milton that I sent to the author of the book on the 
Johannine Comma.  Incidentally, our view of the 'spuriousness' of the verse is that it is
greatly exaggerated :-) .   (That is, the 'heavenly witnesses' verse is truly scripture, written by John.)

====================================================================

John Milton: Topical Bibliography  By Elbert Nevius Sèbring Thompson
http://books.google.com/books?id=1Mh8bfF37tsC&printsec=titlepage#PPA43,M1
Christian Doctrine  - De doctrina Christiana. Cantabrigiae, 1825. 
A treatise of Christian doctrine. - John Milton (c. 1665)  (1608-1674)
Translated C. R. Sumner. Cambridge, 1825.  

================================================================
http://books.google.com/books?id=vnADB6zuDoAC
A Treatise on Christian Doctrine: Compiled from the Holy Scriptures Alone  By John Milton

Ch 5 - Of the Son of God p. 91
Ch 6 - Of the Holy Spirit p. 153

P. 96-97 (p. 24 - Milton on the Son of God..p. 12 Last Thoughts)
The other passage, and which according to the general opinion affords the clearest foundation for the received doctrine of the essential unity of the three persons, is 1 John v. 7. there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. But not to mention that this verse is wanting in the Syriac (8) and the other two Oriental versions, the Arabic and the Ethiopic, as well as in the greater part of the ancient Greek manuscripts, and that in those manuscripts which actually contain it many various readings occur, it no more necessarily proves those to be essentially one, who are said to be one in heaven, than it proves those to be essentially one, who are said to be one on earth in the following verse. And not only Erasmus, but even Beza, however unwillingly, acknowledged (as may be seen in their own writings) that if John be really the author 
of the verse, he is only speaking here, as in the last quoted passage, of an unity of agreement and testimony. Besides, who are the three who are said to bear witness ? That they are three Gods, will not be admitted; therefore neither is it the one God, but one record or one testimony of three witnesses, which is implied. But he who is not co-essential with God the Father, cannot be co-equal with the Father. This text however will be discussed more at large in the following chapter. 

=============================================
EDITORS NOTE

(8) This is true of the manuscripts of the old Syriac version, but the printed editions of the 
Syriac as well as of the Armenian versions contain the disputed clause. See Bishop Marsh's 
Letters to Archdeacon Travis. Preface, Notes 8, 9, 10, 11. With respect to the Greek manuscripts Milton expresses himself cautiously. It now appears that the clause is not found in any  Greek manuscript written before the sixteenth century, which has been yet collated. For an elaborate account of the arguments for and against its authenticity, see Horne's Introduction, &c. Part II. Chap. iv. Sect. 5. §. 6. where references are given to the principal authorities. 

===================================================================

p. 160  (p. 120 - Milton on the Son of God. p. 74 Last Thoughts.)
... 1 John v. 7. there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. The latter passage has been considered in the preceding chapter; but both will undergo a further examination in a subsequent part of the present. 

Also
http://books.google.com/books?id=cFsLAAAAIAAJ 
Prose Works of John Milton - published 1887
p. 94
p.158

p.167 (also in The Students Milton - 1941 p. 972  Milton on the Son of God p. 133 Last Thoughts p. 87)
This may suffice to convince us, that in this kind of threefold enumerations the sacred writers have no 
view whatever to the doctrine of three divine persons, or to the equality or order of those persons ;­not even in that verse which has been mentioned above, and on which commentators in general lay so much stress, 1 John v. 7. " there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the 
Holy Ghost, and these three are one," where there is in reality nothing which implies either divinity or unity of essence. 1 Tim. v. 21. I charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels,­ where it might have been expected that the Holy Spirit would have been named in the third place, if such ternary forms of expression really contained the meaning which is commonly ascribed to them. What kind of unity is intended, is sufficiently plain from the next verse, in which the spirit, the water, and the blood are mentioned, which are to bear record to one, or to that one thing. Beza himself, who is generally a staunch defender of the Trinity, understands the phrase unum sunt to mean, agree in 
one. What it is that they testify, appears in the fifth and sixth verses­namely, that he that overcometh the world is he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God, even Jesus Christ, that is, the anointed ; therefore he is not one with, nor equal to, him that anointed him. Thus the very record that they bear is inconsistent with the essential unity of the witnesses, which is attempted to be deduced from the passage. For the Word is both the Son and Christ, that is, as has been said, the anointed; and as he is the image, as it were, by which we see God, so is he the word by which we hear him. But if such be his nature, he cannot be essentially one with God, whom no one can see or hear. The same has been already proved, by other arguments, with regard to the Spirit; it follows, therefore, that these three are not one in essence. I say nothing of the suspicion of spuriousness attached to the passage, which is a matter of criticism rather than of doctrine, Further, I would ask whether there is one Spirit that bears record in heaven, and another which bears record in earth, or whether both are the same Spirit. If the same, it is extraordinary that we nowhere else read of his bearing witness in heaven, although his witness has been always most conspicuously manifested in earth, that is, in our hearts. Christ certainly brings forward himself and his Father as the only witnesses of himself, John viii. 16, 19. Why then, in addition to two other perfectly competent witnesses, should the Spirit twice bear witness to the same thing? On the other hand, if it be another Spirit, we have here a new and unheard-of doctrine. There are besides other circumstances, which in the opinion of many render the passage suspicious; and yet it is on the, authority of this text, almost exclusively, that the, whole doctrine of the Trinity has been hastily 
adopted. 

=====================
Milton does not himself take a "spurious" position, although he mentions the viewpoint a few times.
Here are quotes from above.

...  not to mention that this verse is wanting in the Syriac (8) and the other two Oriental versions, the Arabic and the Ethiopic, as well as in the greater part of the ancient Greek manuscripts, and that in those manuscripts which actually contain it many various readings occur ....if John be really the author 
of the verse ...   I say nothing of the suspicion of spuriousness attached to the passage, which is a matter of criticism rather than of doctrine ... which in the opinion of many render the passage suspicious

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY