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

Posted : 29 Oct, 2011 08:50 AM

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. Avoid the dialectic, and stick to good scholarship and the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Post Reply