More On the I John 5: 7-8 - the Trinity - Issue

[texian]

More On the I John 5: 7-8 - the Trinity - Issue

On a Chistian forum someone wrote on I John 5: 7-8 - the trinity - that
"The passage in question was never part of the bible...even erasmus knew it didn't belong... he kept it out of his textus receptus until the third edition...when he added it in response to pressure from powerful roman authorities...the passage seems to have originated as a corruption in a few spanish copies of the latin vulgate around the seventh century... its spanish origin suggests that it may have been added to strengthen the doctrine of the trinity in opposition to the trinity rejecting muslims who were threatening spain at that time."

The issue of the wording of I John 5: 7-8 begins with the large difference between the wording
in the Textus Receptus Greek text and the Westcott-Hort text:

Textus Receptus for I John 5: 7-8:
oti treiv eisin oi marturountev en tw ouranw o pathr o logov kai to agion pneuma kai outoi oi treiv en eisin
kai treiv eisin oi marturountev en th gh to pneuma kai to udwr kai to aima kai oi treiv eiv to en eisin

Because three there are who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one and these three there are who bear witness on earth, the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood; and the three to the one are.

Westcott-Hort for I John 5:7-8:
oti treis eisin oi marturontes o pneuma kai to udor kau to anima kai treis eis to en eisin

For three are testify the Spirit and the water and the blood and three in the agreement are

The Westcott-Hort leaves out many words and reduces the text to a very abbreviated version which
does not explain the trinity as fully as does the Textus Receptus.

Following the Textus Receptus the King James Version says for I John 5: 7-8:
"For there are three that bear
record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these
three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the
spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

And, based largely upon the Westcott-Hort, the New International Version says: ""For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water
and the blood: and the three are in agreement."

And the Douay-Rheims says: " 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."

The Catholic Douay-Rheims agrees with the Textus Receptus and King
James. Its interesting that the Douay-Rheims has a clearer statement of the
doctrine of the trinity than the modern translations from
Westcott-Hort. The statement quoted above from a person on a
Christian forum suggests that the more elaborated Textus Receptus wording of I John 5: 7-8
was promoted by the Roman Catholics. The reasoning here might be that since the Roman
Catholic Bibles have a wording for this text close to the Textus Receptus, or Byzantine, and Old Latin
or Waldensian Bible which was prior to Jerome's Latin Vulgate Bible, that the very brief Westcott-Hort Alexandarian version must be right. Somehow the implication might be that the Catholics have promoted the doctrine of the trinity.

But the problem is that
the King James wording for I John 5: 7-8 is said by the followers of
Westcot-Hort not to exist in early Greek texts. The NIV Study Bible
says that I John 5:7 "...is not found in any Greek manuscript or New
Testament translation prior to the 16th century."

The quote below is from:
http://www.fundamentalbiblechurch.or...n/fbcdoesa.htm

"It is not true that I John 5:7 is absent in all pre-16th century
Greek manuscripts and New Testament translations. The text is found
in eight extant Greek manuscripts, and five of them are dated before
the 16th century (Greek miniscules 88, 221, 429, 629, 636).
Furthermore, there is abundant support for I John 5:7f from the Latin
translations. There are at least 8000 extant Latin manuscripts, and
many of them contain 1 John 5:7; the really important ones being the
Old Latin, which church fathers such as Tertullian (AD 155-220) and
Cyprian (AD 200-258) used. Now, out of the very few Old Latin
manuscripts with the fifth chapter of First John, at least four of
them contain the Comma. Since these Latin versions were derived from
the Greek New Testament, there is reason to believe that I John 5:7
has very early Greek attestation, hitherto lost."

I John 5: 7-8 in the wording of the Textus Receptus is in two eighth
century Greek texts, the
Wizanburgensis and the Basiliensis. Basiliensis is now kept at Basel,
Switzerland and Wizanburgensis
is in the the Dublin University Library.

There may be copies available of the Wizanburgensis and the
Basiliensis. Why not try to find out whether I John 5: 7-8
in the Textus Receptus wording is in these two eighth century Greek
texts, rather than quoting some "Bible scholars?"

The question is why do Christians
want to believe some "Bible Scholars"
and the The NIV Study Bible that I John 5:7 is not found in any Greek
manuscript or New Testament translation prior to the 16th century."

On http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/1john5n7.html

it is said that: "It is
somewhat understandable that those who rely upon information given to
them by others (Hiebert, Ryrie, etc.) would repeat the assertions made
by textual scholars. It is less understandable that scholars like
Metzger and the Alands, who ought very well to have access to the full
body of information on this subject, would continue to propagate
claims that are verifiably false concerning this passage of Scripture.
The disinformation that continues to be perpetuated by liberal textual
critics results in confusion among the ranks of God's people
concerning the Scriptures, which can only serve to divide and weaken
the churches of Christ, the local assemblies who are charged with
keeping and guarding the Word of God (I Timothy 3:15)."

They say "... we must note the presence of this verse in the Old Latin
version. The Old Latin (called such because it predates the Vulgate of
Jerome) dates to around the middle of the 2nd century.25 As such, the
Old Latin version is an important foundation for examination of
evidence concerning the Comma. This is recognized because, due to its
antiquity, it must necessarily have been translated from "young" Greek
manuscripts..."

" We should note that verse does appear in the text of Codex
Wizanburgensis, a Vulgate manuscript dating to the mid-8th
century....Dabney cites this manuscript as a very early Greek witness
to the Comma - see Discussions of Robert Lewis Dabney, "The Doctrinal
Various Readings of the New Testament Greek," Discussions: Evangelical
and Theological, Vol. 1 (1891), p. 381. It first appeared in the
Southern Presbyterian Review, April 1871.... Bengel, on his part,
lists Wizanbergensis (99) as a Vulgate ms. from the 8th century that
contains the Comma (see J.A. Bengel, E. Bengel, J.C.F. Steudel, and
A.R. Faucette, Gnomon of the New Testament, Vol. 5, p. 136, in the
notes)."

They cite Cyprian, a North African bishop, who quotes a part of I
John 5: 7-8 as found in the Textus Receptus in about 250 AD. He
writes,

"He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in
opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church,
scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, 'I and the Father are
one;' and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'"- Cyprian, On the Unity of
the Catholic Church, Ch. 6

On the claim that Erasmus included the present Textus Receptus wording
of I John 5: 7-8 on the basis of a fake Greek text they say: "It is
said that he was criticized for omitting the Comma from his first two
editions, and responded to accusations of heresy by stating that he
would include the Comma if even one Greek manuscript could be found
which contained the verse. Then, according to legend, the powers that
be dashed off a copy of the Greek New Testament, complete with Comma,
and brought it to Erasmus with the ink still wet and dripping. He thus
included the Comma on this "evidence".

"However popular this bedtime story may be with opponents of the
Received Text, it has little support in fact...Modern scholars will
claim that Erasmus included the Comma on the basis of the Codex
Montfortianus, said to be the hastily prepared Greek codex which was
produced to give him the pretext for including the verse. Erasmus
states that he included the Comma into his third edition based upon
the witness of the Codex Britannicus, a separate Greek codex."

"Ultimately, Erasmus himself had access to at least five Greek
manuscripts upon which he based his later editions of the Greek New
Testament, one of them dating back to the 11th century."

My comment: Erasmus used several Byzantine Greek texts more recent
than the fourth century Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which were used by
Westcott and Hort for their 1881 Greek text. One site,
The Holy Bible says
that Erasmus used six to eight Greek texts from the 11th, 12th, 13th
and 15th centuries, apparently two manuscripts with different copies.
The issue of the Textus Receptus verses the Westcott-Hort wording for
I John 5: 7-8 is similar to the old argument between the Textus
Receptus as based on a set of late Byzantine Greek texts and the
Westcott-Hort text based on the older fourth century Alexzandarian
texts, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. The Byzantine texts,
associated with Antioch, Syria, copied over the centuries by Bible
scribes, did not last in the more humid climate they were created and
used in as well as did the older Greek texts associated with
Alexandria, Egypt. The older texts survived better in the dry climate
of Egypt. So, the Byzantine type texts that existed in the fourth
century and earlier, that could have contained the Textus Receptus
wording on the Trinity, did not survive. The Byzantine texts Erasmus
had were late, from the eleventh to fifteenth centuries. Had a Papyri
fragment from the fourth century or earlier containing the Textus
Receptus wording of I John 5: 7-8 been found in Egypt, this would be
good evidence for the Textus Receptus wording's earlier existence.
Though some Papyri fragments with Textus Receptus type wordings have
been found in Egypt, apparently so far none have included the critical
text on the Trinity.

But you cannot argue from silence - that the Textus Receptus wording
did not exist in very early copies of the New Testament.

On http://www.biblebelievers.com/JEcob1.html

they say: ""It is
noteworthy that, though Erasmus had correspondence with three (3)
Popes, (Julius II, Leo X and Adrian VI) and spent some time at Rome,
he did not use Codex Vaticanus (B) when compiling the first printed
text. (Codex B was the prime authority used by Westcott and Hort whose
text is the basis for most modern translations.)...It is therefore
evident that Erasmus rejected the readings of Codex B as untrustworthy
and it is probable that he had a better acquaintance with it than did
Tregelles in the 19th Century."

Its not a good idea to get into endless argument, involving the use of the dialectic, over I John 5: 7-8, and the obvious difference between the Textus Receptus wording and that of the Westcott-Hort. The Westcott-Hort
Greek text versus the Textus Receptus is a fruitful subject for the practice of the dialectic. To a great extent, the dialectic is argrument based on opinion.Avoid the dialectic, and stick to good scholarship and the leading of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Nomad]

And, based largely upon the Westcott-Hort, the New International Version says: ""For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water
and the blood: and the three are in agreement."

I've been seeing this error a lot lately, so let's dispel it right now. There are no modern English translations based on Westcott & Hort. Their critical edition relied heavily on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which makes it very Alexandrian in character. The NT of the NIV is based on the Nestle-Aland critical text, which is an eclectic text using a wide range of resources.

But the problem is that
the King James wording for I John 5: 7-8 is said by the followers of
Westcot-Hort not to exist in early Greek texts. The NIV Study Bible
says that I John 5:7 "...is not found in any Greek manuscript or New
Testament translation prior to the 16th century."

There's a bit of a misunderstanding here. The NIV's note applies to the particular version or wording of the Comma Johanneum as found in the TR. There are other versions of the Comma found in slightly older manuscripts. Here's a more comprehensive note that contains this information:

Before τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα (to pneuma kai to {udwr kai to |aima), the Textus Receptus (TR) reads ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. 5:8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ (“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth”). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence – both external and internal – is decidedly against its authenticity. For a detailed discussion, see TCGNT 647-49. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence. This longer reading is found only in nine late mss, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these mss (221 2318 [18th century] {2473 [dated 1634]} and [with minor variations] 61 88 429 629 636 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest ms, codex 221 (10th century) includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. The oldest ms with the Comma in its text is from the 14th century (629), but the wording here departs from all the other mss in several places. The next oldest mss on behalf of the Comma, 88 (12th century) 429 (14th) 636 (15th), also have the reading only as a marginal note (v.l.). The remaining mss are from the 16th to 18th centuries. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek ms until the 14th century (629), and that ms deviates from all others in its wording; the wording that matches what is found in the TR was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the Comma appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either ms, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until a.d. 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. The reading seems to have arisen in a 4th century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared, there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek mss that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written in ca. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this ms sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text, as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever mss he could for the production of his text. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: He did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold. Modern advocates of the TR and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings – even in places where the TR/Byzantine mss lack them. Further, these advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: Since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. (Of course, this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text.) In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum goes back to the original text yet does not appear until the 14th century in any Greek mss (and that form is significantly different from what is printed in the TR; the wording of the TR is not found in any Greek mss until the 16th century)? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: Faith must be rooted in history. Significantly, the German translation of Luther was based on Erasmus’ second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza’s 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus’ third and later editions (and Stephanus’ editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others. - New English Translation, note on 1 Jn. 5:7

I John 5: 7-8 in the wording of the Textus Receptus is in two eighth
century Greek texts, the
Wizanburgensis and the Basiliensis. Basiliensis is now kept at Basel,
Switzerland and Wizanburgensis
is in the the Dublin University Library.

The only information I can find on Wizanburgensis claims that it's a Latin manuscript, not Greek. I'm not sure if that's what's being claimed for it or not. I can't find anything Basiliensis except that it's the name of a music academy in Basel Switzerland.

 

[kiwimac]

You are, of course, aware that the Comma Johanneum was not quoted even once during the great debates over the Trinity in the early church. Why? Because it simply was not there.