1 John 5:7-8

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...

 

Not likely, but when an error is made, then copied and copied again and again, it has a kind of snowball effect.

 

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

 

Modern text crits would probably agree with you. Since I am Byzantine preferred, I can not.

 

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.

 

[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 ]

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

There are several other places on the web and in books where you can find these and other Comma citations by Church fathers.


HankD

 

I do not understand 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.

 

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