1 John 5:7-8

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by DesiderioDomini, Dec 4, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    We were discussing this a while back, and I read something that intrigued me.

    If we are to accept this reading as authentic, dont we also have to admit that a reading can flat out DISAPEAR from the greek manuscript tradition without so much as a trace?

    I wonder if anyone has looked at it this way.

    Actually, this isnt just a KJVO question, since many MV users believe this passage to be authentic.

    My question is, how can a reading be authentic, and then completely disappear from the language it was originally written?
     
  2. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Scribal error could be to blame. After all, those who worked to copy Scripture were just as prone to eye fatigue as we are today. After so many hours of copying the text I am sure their eyes "ran together" as my wife calls it. Another contributor to eye fatigue could have been poor lighting. Today we have the luxury of electritity - in those days electric lights were not even thought of.

    IMHO, most scribes revered the word of God. If so, they would not have intentionally done anything to change it.

    Just my 2 cents...
     
  3. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    All good points....but is it likely that every scribe in every part of the world using greek manuscripts made an error in the same place?
     
  4. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not likely, but when an error is made, then copied and copied again and again, it has a kind of snowball effect.
     
  5. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,121
    Likes Received:
    319
    It it were accidently left out of the first copy (or very close to the first early on) of 1 John but not the first translation into Latin (Old Itala) then that would account for the gap in mss copies of the original and it's preservation in Latin.

    Someone reported that it is estimated that the several thousands of NT mss we have (they not all 1 John) only represent about 1% of those that are out there (hidden away, etc).

    I don't now how they estimated that.

    If Christians everywhere pooled there resources maybe we could significantly raise that percentage?

    HankD
     
  6. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok, good points. However, doesnt it make MORE sense that this passage was accidentally added into the Latin as an explination, rather than disappearing from every greek manuscript on the planet?

    I honestly believe that it is more reasonable that something was added, rather than deleted.

    What do yall think?
     
  7. Boanerges

    Boanerges
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    591
    Likes Received:
    0
    Modern text crits would probably agree with you. Since I am Byzantine preferred, I can not.
     
  8. nate

    nate
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    0
    I like the idea that some scribe, after hearing a sermon or such, added those words into the margin. When the next person came along they probably thought the person had left it out and put it in as verses 7-8. And I agree it would be easier to add this reading than delete it. I do not believe scribes would all make such an error on such an important verse.
     
  9. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    Would you mind posting a few of the reasons why?

    Can you explain how you think this reading disappeared from all the greek manuscripts on earth?
     
  10. Hope of Glory

    Hope of Glory
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    [1 John 5:7,8] Even up to the fifth and final edition of Erasmus' Greek text in 1535, Erasmus occasionally fell prey to pressure from Roman Catholic church authorities to add to subsequent editions phrases and entire verses that he strongly (and rightly) suspected were not part of the original text (remember, he didn’t have the oldest and best texts from which to compile). Many scholars document how Erasmus was manipulated to include what later was translated into the KJV in 1 John 5:7,8, the following text: "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth." Conservative biblical scholar F.F. Bruce (History of the English Bible, Third Edition, New York: Oxford University Press, 1978, pages 141-142) explains the sad history of how those words were errantly added to Erasmus' Greek text of 1 John 5:7,8:


    http://www.bibletexts.com/versecom/1jo05v07.htm

    Edited to shorten and include source

    [ December 05, 2005, 01:48 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]
     
  11. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    If one is going to "quote" material (as the above is a direct quotation from another site) please follow our procedure:

    (1) Short quotation - give it and give source

    (2) Long quotation (more than a paragraph) - give a "link" to the place where it is found.
     
  12. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let me ask this.....Does it really matter to anyone whether or not this reading is original?

    Since it is orthodox, do we want to keep it because it solidifies the doctrine of the trinity?

    Sometimes I cringe at what the answer would be if people were honest.
     
  13. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,121
    Likes Received:
    319
    I believe it happened just the way I proposed. Besides how do you know that we have examined every greek mss on the planet?

    The only infallible way to know is to see the original autograph.

    It matters to me just like the pericope or the ending of Mark (among others) matters to me.

    And BTW the Comma can be made NON-orthodox as was done by the arians vs the Trinitarians in the Latin arguments of the Trinity. The three heavenly witnesses "and these three are one" are argued to be "and these three are one in agreement" by the arians as opposed to "and these three are one in essence" as Athanasius argued.

    Both arians and Trinitarians claimed the verse supported their view because it doesn't define what "one" is, that is "these three are one" but one what?


    HankD
     
  14. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok, but is there any evidence, or is it just something you believe?

    Every manuscript known to the modern world. If there are one or 2 hidden in with some fandom monks, then I would be wrong. To claim this as evidence though would be rather illogical, wouldnt you say?

    WOuld you be able to admit that the vast majority of manuscript evidence rejects this reading? Wouldnt you say that the manuscript normally called "reliable" by the KJV and TR defenders are completely void of this reading?

    How can those manuscripts be reliable at all if they not just have an errant reading, but completely LOST the most plain teaching verse on the trinity in the bible? I believe that the doctrine of the trinity does not stand or fall on this verse, but if it is authentic, and was removed completely from every availible greek manuscript, then how can we say that those manuscripts are reliable at all?

    I think including this verse does more to damage the doctrine of preservation than any change that could ever be made by dynamic equivalence. We are admitting that a very important verse, not a spelling, an "a" or "the", can completely disappear from its original language, are we not?

    I do agree there. I am not willing to say that without a doubt, this reading is not authentic. However, I do not believe that it is.

    I think the heaviest evidence is the complete absence of any mention of this reading during the great trinity debates of the early church fathers. If they knew of this reading, wouldnt they have used it?
     
  15. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,121
    Likes Received:
    319
    DD. you are correct, apart from the Latin witnesses the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of your point of view.

    The Latin early Church fathers did appeal to the Comma but it was easily rebutted because the Comma itself does not say or indicate that God is "one in essence".

    Look at the context

    1 John 5
    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.
    9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
    10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

    The arians have a very stong contextual argument that the "oneness" of the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost are one in agreement concerning the witness of the Son of God in the context of 1 John 5.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm a convinced Trinitarian but 1 John 5:7 is not "the" proof text of the Trinity.

    IMO, Matthew 20:19 is the proof text of the Trinity.

    JV Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

    "in the NAME (singular) of..." "Name" is singular therefore showing the singular nature (essence) of the Godhead.

    "THE Father" and "THE Son", and "THE Holy Ghost"
    The definite article "THE" showing that the persons in the Godhead are distinct from one another.

    The conjunction "and" being used shows the plurality of persons in the singular Godhead.

    HankD
     
  16. Hope of Glory

    Hope of Glory
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for posting the link. I saved the page on my computer to study a long time ago, and did not remember where it was on the web.

    When we have a passage such as this that we can trace to a point where it was added, then it seems quite obvious that it doesn't belong. When we can find a transcribed manuscript where a note is added, and the next one has it included in the text, then it doesn't belong.

    If we don't have the luxury of tracing it down, then we have to take the evidence at hand. How many manuscripts have it, age of the manuscripts, origination, etc.

    That's one reason I like the Nestle's text for the Greek.
     
  17. DesiderioDomini

    DesiderioDomini
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    836
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hank,

    I have yet to hear of an early church father who used this reading. I havent even heard that from the KJVO circle.

    Could you tell me where you found it?
     
  18. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,121
    Likes Received:
    319
    There are several other places on the web and in books where you can find these and other Comma citations by Church fathers.


    HankD
     
  19. nate

    nate
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    0
    I do not understand :confused: if this reading is original why is it not in more Greek mss. Why did Erasmus not include this verse in his first 2 editions of the TR. None of the mss he had included this reading and Rome had to send him 61 which was authored by a RC priest. If one argues for this verse's inclusion then to me you have to admit the RC church "preserved" this reading.
     
  20. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,121
    Likes Received:
    319
    Not really, the churches in Italy preserved this verse in the Old Itala mss which pre-date the paganized Church of Rome around the 4th-5th centuries.

    HankD
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...