The I John 5: 6-8 Issue

[northwye]

The I John 5: 6-8 Issue

Someone on an Internet site said that the King James Version has the "...unauthorized 1 John 5:7 scripture which has no authoritative Greek manuscript evidence and was added to the New Testament in the 1500's by Erasmus."

Who was it that said I John 5: 7 is not in the Greek manuscripts?

See: http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/1john57.asp

."...we find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s. Here is a useful timeline of references to this verse:

200 AD Tertullian wrote "which three are one" based on the verse in his Against Praxeas, chapter 25.

250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)

350 AD Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]

350 AD Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]

350 AD Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione

398 AD Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism

415 AD Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)

450-530 AD Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven"
B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]
C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]

500 AD Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]

550 AD Old Latin ms r has it

550 AD The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]

750 AD Wianburgensis referred to it

800 AD Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]

1000s AD miniscule 635 has it

1150 AD minuscule ms 88 in the margin

1300s AD miniscule 629 has it

157-1400 AD Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse
1500 AD ms 61 has the verse

Even Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r."

I John 5: 6-8:

Vaticanus (4th c.):
"6 ουτος εστιν ο ελθων δι υδατος και αιματος ις χς ουκ εν τω υδατι μονω αλλ εν τω υδατι και εν τω αιματι· και το πνευμα τιν το μαρτυρουν οτι το πνευμα εστιν η αληθεια 7 οτι ··τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες· 8 το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα· και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν·"

Sinaiticus (4th c.):
"6 ουτος εστιν ο ελθων δια υδατος και αιματος και πνς ις χς ουκ εν τω υδατι μονον αλλ εν τω υδατι και τω αιματι και το πνα εστιν το μαρτυρουν οτι το πνα εστιν η αληθεια 7 οτι οι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες 8 το πνα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν"

Westcott-Hort 1881 Greek Text:

"6 ουτος εστιν ο ελθων δι υδατος και αιματος ιησους χριστος ουκ εν τω υδατι μονον αλλ εν τω υδατι και εν τω αιματι και το πνευμα εστιν το μαρτυρουν οτι το πνευμα εστιν η αληθεια 7 οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες 8 το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν."

OK, lets see what the Textus Receptus says in the Greek for I John 5: 6-8:

"6 ουτος εστιν ο ελθων δι υδατος και αιματος ιησους ο χριστος ουκ εν τω υδατι μονον αλλ εν τω υδατι και τω αιματι και το πνευμα εστιν το μαρτυρουν οτι το πνευμα εστιν η αληθεια 7 οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν 8 και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν."

Based upon the Westcott-Hort Greek text, the New American Standard Bible says for I John 5: 6-8;
"6 This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth..............7 For there are three that testify:.......8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."

And the New International Version for I John 5: 6-8 says "This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."

Finally, the King James Version for I John 5: 6-8 says "This is the that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 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."

As happens with many verses in the New Testament, the 4th century Vaticanus and Sinaiticus have shorter verse wordings than does the Textus Receptus. For some verses this shortening of the verse wording results in a different doctrine, or in ambiguity. The Textus Receptus spells out and makes more explicit in verses 7 and 8 who exactly the three are. Saying in verse 7 that the three are the Spirit, the water and the blood is not as clear as saying The Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost. It is not that I John 5: 7 is not in the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, but that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus do not say clearly who the three are.

The Roman Catholic Church changed from using the Greek texts to using the Vulgate Latin text for the New Testament. But The Vulgate of Jerome is under some influence from the 4th century Vaticanus. The Sinaiticus was not yet discovered when Jerome created the Vulgate Catholic New Testament. The Reformation went back to the Greek texts because the reformers, including Erasmus, believed that the Greek New Testament texts were closer to the original texts. In going back to the Greek texts, Erasmus finally decided to include the longer verse wording for I John 5: 7, which is more explicit in saying who the three are.

 

[fzappa13]

Instead of swallowing Chick tracts whole you might want to research the matter for yourself ... hopefully casting a little wider net. This offering completely misstates and misrepresents the matters of contention concerning this subject.

 

[Nick M]

If it is or isn't there isn't really an issue in terms of doctrine. It probably isn't because satan is subtil and appears as an angel of light. The statement is true, but wasn't there. He had it added to discredit it later.

 

[fzappa13]

If it is or isn't there isn't really an issue in terms of doctrine. It probably isn't because satan is subtil and appears as an angel of light. The statement is true, but wasn't there. He had it added to discredit it later.

Well, I've got to give it to you ... that's a take on the subject I haven't heard before and I've been listening to the various arguments for quite a number of years.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Well, I've got to give it to you ... that's a take on the subject I haven't heard before and I've been listening to the various arguments for quite a number of years.

Kinda makes Jesus a liar when he said a kingdom divided cant stand, hunh?

Instead of Satan disguising himself, he's got him blasting himself.:wazzup:

 

[Nick M]

Well, I've got to give it to you ... that's a take on the subject I haven't heard before and I've been listening to the various arguments for quite a number of years.

The statement is true yet not seen in early versions. Who added it and why? The devil does not come at people with both barrels as the "Pentecostals" claim he hides what he is doing. God said so through Moses.

A person wanting the truth of God doesn't knowingly add to the Bible or take from it.

 

[themuzicman]

(1) The use of the Johanine comma in early texts is in the Latin Vulgate, not the Greek manuscripts. It is a traditional phrase, which is why early writers use it.

(2) Erasmus, in his original Greek New Testament, excluded it, saying that if a manuscript could be found that had the Johanine comma, that he would include it. AFTER Erasmus completed the first version of the now dubbed "TR", a manuscript was produced in England with the Johanine comma. And in spite of the ink still being wet, Erasmus included it to keep his word.

This manuscript is the FIRST Greek manuscript to have the Johanine comma in it, and it was produced to preserve the tradition of the Vulgate, not because it was in the original text.

 

[jamie]

1 John 5:7

No Syriac manuscript of any family — Peshito, Philoxenian, or Harklean — has the three witnesses; and their presence in the printed Syriac Gospels is due to translation from the Vulgate.

So too, the Coptic manuscripts — both Sahidic and Bohairic — have no trace of the disputed part, nor have the Ethiopic manuscripts which represent Greek influence through the medium of Coptic.

The Armenian manuscripts, which favour the reading of the Vulgate, are admitted to represent a Latin influence which dates from the twelfth century; early Armenian manuscripts are against the Latin reading.

Of the Itala or Old Latin manuscripts, only two have our present reading of the three witnesses: Codex Monacensis of the sixth or seventh century; and the Speculum, an eighth or ninth century manuscript which gives many quotations from the New Testament.

Even the Vulgate, in the majority of its earliest manuscripts, is without the passage in question. Witnesses to the canonicity are: the Bible of Theodulph (eighth century) in the National Library of Paris; Codex Cavensis (ninth century), the best representative of the Spanish type of text: Toletanus (tenth century); and the majority of Vulgate manuscripts after the twelfth century.

There was some dispute as to the canonicity of the three witnesses as early as the sixth century: for the preface to the Catholic Epistles in Codex Fuldensis (A.D. 541-546) complains about the omission of this passage from some of the Latin versions.

(newadvent.org/ Catholic Encyclopedia/ Epistles of St. John)

 

[aikido7]

The I John 5: 6-8 Issue

Someone on an Internet site said that the King James Version has the "...unauthorized 1 John 5:7 scripture which has no authoritative Greek manuscript evidence and was added to the New Testament in the 1500's by Erasmus."

Who was it that said I John 5: 7 is not in the Greek manuscripts?

See: http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/1john57.asp

."...we find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s. Here is a useful timeline of references to this verse:

200 AD Tertullian wrote "which three are one" based on the verse in his Against Praxeas, chapter 25.

250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)

350 AD Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]

350 AD Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]

350 AD Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione

398 AD Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism

415 AD Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)

450-530 AD Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven"
B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]
C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]

500 AD Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]

550 AD Old Latin ms r has it

550 AD The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]

750 AD Wianburgensis referred to it

800 AD Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]

1000s AD miniscule 635 has it

1150 AD minuscule ms 88 in the margin

1300s AD miniscule 629 has it

157-1400 AD Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse
1500 AD ms 61 has the verse

Even Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r."

I John 5: 6-8:

Vaticanus (4th c.):
"6 ουτος εστιν ο ελθων δι υδατος και αιματος ις χς ουκ εν τω υδατι μονω αλλ εν τω υδατι και εν τω αιματι· και το πνευμα τιν το μαρτυρουν οτι το πνευμα εστιν η αληθεια 7 οτι ··τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες· 8 το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα· και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν·"

Sinaiticus (4th c.):
"6 ουτος εστιν ο ελθων δια υδατος και αιματος και πνς ις χς ουκ εν τω υδατι μονον αλλ εν τω υδατι και τω αιματι και το πνα εστιν το μαρτυρουν οτι το πνα εστιν η αληθεια 7 οτι οι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες 8 το πνα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν"

Westcott-Hort 1881 Greek Text:

"6 ουτος εστιν ο ελθων δι υδατος και αιματος ιησους χριστος ουκ εν τω υδατι μονον αλλ εν τω υδατι και εν τω αιματι και το πνευμα εστιν το μαρτυρουν οτι το πνευμα εστιν η αληθεια 7 οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες 8 το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν."

OK, lets see what the Textus Receptus says in the Greek for I John 5: 6-8:

"6 ουτος εστιν ο ελθων δι υδατος και αιματος ιησους ο χριστος ουκ εν τω υδατι μονον αλλ εν τω υδατι και τω αιματι και το πνευμα εστιν το μαρτυρουν οτι το πνευμα εστιν η αληθεια 7 οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν 8 και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν."

Based upon the Westcott-Hort Greek text, the New American Standard Bible says for I John 5: 6-8;
"6 This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth..............7 For there are three that testify:.......8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."

And the New International Version for I John 5: 6-8 says "This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."

Finally, the King James Version for I John 5: 6-8 says "This is the that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 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."

As happens with many verses in the New Testament, the 4th century Vaticanus and Sinaiticus have shorter verse wordings than does the Textus Receptus. For some verses this shortening of the verse wording results in a different doctrine, or in ambiguity. The Textus Receptus spells out and makes more explicit in verses 7 and 8 who exactly the three are. Saying in verse 7 that the three are the Spirit, the water and the blood is not as clear as saying The Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost. It is not that I John 5: 7 is not in the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, but that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus do not say clearly who the three are.

The Roman Catholic Church changed from using the Greek texts to using the Vulgate Latin text for the New Testament. But The Vulgate of Jerome is under some influence from the 4th century Vaticanus. The Sinaiticus was not yet discovered when Jerome created the Vulgate Catholic New Testament. The Reformation went back to the Greek texts because the reformers, including Erasmus, believed that the Greek New Testament texts were closer to the original texts. In going back to the Greek texts, Erasmus finally decided to include the longer verse wording for I John 5: 7, which is more explicit in saying who the three are.

The history and development Christianity is characterized by a wide diversity of competing streams of tradition.

It originated in the life and the activity of one Jesus of Nazareth.

When his disciples scattered after the crucifixion, the original faith of the followers was interpreted and practiced by many different people and groups.

Like today, their theologies were different as well as varied.

Careful readers can recognize the disparate and often contradictory traditions in Paul and the four gospels.

The formation of the cannon reveals an interesting history. It did not emerge complete from God to humanity. Interpretation is what it is all about.

Those different interpretations continue today--on TOL as well as the translations and versions of the Bible itself.

 

[northwye]

The issue of I John 5: 6-7 can be seen clearly if you go to https://unbound.biola.edu/

For Unbound Bible you can enter four texts:

l. English: New American Standard Bible "For there are three that testify:"

2. English: King James Version "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

But I John 5: 8 is also part of John's statement on the trinity. The New American Standard says "the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."

And for I John 5: 8 the King James Version says "And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

3. Greek: Westcott-Hort "οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες"

4. Greek: Textus Receptus "οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν

The "correct" verse wording for I John 5: 7 is "For there are three that testify:"

This is a direct translation of the Westcott-Hort which is from the 4th century Greek texts, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

The "incorrect" verse wording of I John 5: 7 is ""For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." This is directly from the Textus Receptus.

It is misleading to say that I John 5: 7 is not in the "best" Greek manuscripts. The shorter version of I John 5; 7 is in the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and the longer version is in the Textus Receptus.

Following Isaiah 28: 10, "precept must be upon precept...line upon line; here a little, and there a little..."a scripture is to be understand by use of other scripture.

Now look in a concordance of the New Testament for Spirit, Holy Spirit, Holy Ghost, God the Father, Father, Christ, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Son of Man, the Word and see if the longer more explicit wording of the Textus Receptus and the King James Version do not better fit what is said about the trinity in other New Testament texts.

Trying to argue that "the Spirit and the water and the blood" in the new Bible versions is a correct statement about God does not fit what the other texts say about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I John 5: 6 in the New American Standard Bible says "This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth." This leaves out God the Father.

 

[jamie]

Well, we know that the Holy Spirit is Jesus' father.

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 1:18 NKJV)

But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit." (Matthew 1:20 NKJV)

And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. (Luke 1:35 NKJV)
​

 

[freelight]

This verse is only a 'figurative allegory' anyways, no matter your view on it

This verse is only a 'figurative allegory' anyways, no matter your view on it

As happens with many verses in the New Testament, the 4th century Vaticanus and Sinaiticus have shorter verse wordings than does the Textus Receptus. For some verses this shortening of the verse wording results in a different doctrine, or in ambiguity. The Textus Receptus spells out and makes more explicit in verses 7 and 8 who exactly the three are. Saying in verse 7 that the three are the Spirit, the water and the blood is not as clear as saying The Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost. It is not that I John 5: 7 is not in the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, but that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus do not say clearly who the three are.

In any case,....the older greek versions of this verse-context do FINE without adding a Trinitarian description of 'Father, Word, Spirit',...since the 3 that are testifying of Jesus are the Spirit, water and blood - these "3" are all that are essential in this original text, since Jesus Christ is the one being testified to, the Spirit testifying that he came by water and blood (his incarnation). No 'trinitarian' superimposition or inference is necessary.

I go deeper into the 'Comma Johanneum' in my blog post here, with 4 commentary post-links (some with videos). I think any one really interested in this will do the research. Textual-criticism demands honest research here, whether you are a Unitarian or Trinitarian. Even if we add the later passages inbetween the original passage-context,...I don't have a problem with it either, since it reflects a Trinitarian traditional over-view, whether it be an interpolation or part of the original manuscript, but I don't see a lot of evidence for the latter. - in this light, I think its inconsequential. - there are enough passages, creeds and tradition to support a Trinitarian view, but the same could be said for a Unitarian view too

 

[Zeke]

The statement is true yet not seen in early versions. Who added it and why? The devil does not come at people with both barrels as the "Pentecostals" claim he hides what he is doing. God said so through Moses.

A person wanting the truth of God doesn't knowingly add to the Bible or take from it.

Sounds like the law that deceived Paul, deception by God is also within the scripture so don't be so hard on ole slew foot for doing the same, after all God is said to mold the clay/creation to his specs.

 

[freelight]

'interpretation' is 'relative'........

'interpretation' is 'relative'........

Those different interpretations continue today--on TOL as well as the translations and versions of the Bible itself.

All are just 'versions' or 'interpretations' of some assumed 'original article'

 

[dialm]

Satan did not put the Trinity in the Bible. God put the Trinity in the Bible. And only God can take the Trinity out. That is why no one can take the Comma out. It won't come out.

As for the older versions

They are antiques. You don't use antiques. You just look at them and think 'My how quaint'.

 

[freelight]

Satan did not put the Trinity in the Bible. God put the Trinity in the Bible. And only God can take the Trinity out. That is why no one can take the Comma out. It won't come out.

Thanks to the TR and some older latin manuscripts it "got in". I don't think 'satan' or 'god' really had much to do with it, no matter how you define such 'personalities',...since men are the authors of such texts, and their own biases, interpretations and traditions are sometimes reflected in their 'religious writings'.

 

[fzappa13]

Kinda makes Jesus a liar when he said a kingdom divided cant stand, hunh?

Instead of Satan disguising himself, he's got him blasting himself.:wazzup:

Well, that falling stuff can sometimes span a goodly number of years so I'm not inclined to summarily dismiss the idea just because we haven't seen it yet. That said, I'm something of a purist as it comes to the original texts and most of the stuff in the OP was not textual and the little that was centered on the Vaticanus in one way or another while ignoring others.

Having come to a belief in the word of God through my own study I don't have a dog in most of the doctrinal fights that have erupted over what the Word of God does or doesn't say. I'm just interested in what it says sans doctrine and there are instances that the only way to get to the bottom of that matter is to consult the original texts. This presents it's own unique dilemma ... namely, which texts do you trust and why? Translations begin to wander off into the realm of opinion and doctrinal dissertations tend to dive into said pool head first.


In my opinion ...

 

[freelight]

so much for the 'comma johanneum'

so much for the 'comma johanneum'

Well, that falling stuff can sometimes span a goodly number of years so I'm not inclined to summarily dismiss the idea just because we haven't seen it yet. That said, I'm something of a purist as it comes to the original texts and most of the stuff in the OP was not textual and the little that was centered on the Vaticanus in one way or another while ignoring others.

Having come to a belief in the word of God through my own study I don't have a dog in most of the doctrinal fights that have erupted over what the Word of God does or doesn't say. I'm just interested in what is says sans doctrine and there are instances that the only way to get to the bottom of that matter is to consult the original texts. This presents it's own unique dilemma ... namely, which texts do you trust and why? Translations begin to wander off into the realm of opinion and doctrinal dissertations tend to dive into said pool head first.


In my opinion ...

Continuing from here,....we see it then as merely provisional to certain scribes and a few later manuscript copies whether the Comma Johannum' is an actual part of the original autograph. The NASB renders the passage without it just fine, and all follows naturally within 'context' -

5 Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? 6 This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

- NASB

(note the above flows together naturally/contextually...showing that the Spirit, water and blood all testify of Jesus incarnating as the Son of God on earth, the Spirit bearing witness. There is no need to add any reference to 'The Trinity' as later formulated by theologians, since the "3" being spoken of are already clearly specified).

Adding vs. 7 (the comma johanneum).... {"in heaven the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth:"} is a foreign interpolation IMO, a figurative addition added by a scribe or representing a later 'tradition' in a few later latin manuscripts. But hey,...if you want to read it with-in the text,...no harm done either...as long as you recognize its history.

 

[daqq]

As for the older versions

They are antiques. You don't use antiques. You just look at them and think 'My how quaint'.

Hahaha, I have seen an "antique" that in a certain critical doctrinal place says PHANERON instead of PHERON and I continue to use that information to this day in my own private "house". However I could never afford to buy it, even if it ever did come up for auction, because it is truly priceless, and likely the only remaining correct version of that line of "antiques", (or at least that particular line of the Epistle to the Hebrews, lol). :crackup:

 

[fzappa13]

Continuing from here,....we see it then as merely provisional to certain scribes and a few later manuscript copies whether the Comma Johannum' is an actual part of the original autograph. The NASB renders the passage without it just fine, and all follows naturally within 'context' -



(note the above flows together naturally/contextually...showing that the Spirit, water and blood all testify of Jesus incarnating as the Son of God on earth, the Spirit bearing witness. There is no need to add any reference to 'The Trinity' as later formulated by theologians, since the "3" being spoken of are already clearly specified).

Adding vs. 7 (the comma johanneum).... {"in heaven the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth:"} is a foreign interpolation IMO, a figurative addition added by a scribe or representing a later 'tradition' in a few later latin manuscripts. But hey,...if you want to read it with-in the text,...no harm done either...as long as you recognize its history.

Free, I think I know you well enough to know that you know (I know, that's a lotta "Knows") that this controversy is about much more than just a comma. It has been addressed by others in this thread already but I'll give you a quicky:

Over the years I have come to settle on the Companion Bible which is the King James with textual notes in the margins by Bullinger who was both a Trinitarian and a Dispensationalist ... which I am not ... at least not in the traditional sense. I have found him to be intellectually honest as it concerns textual points by researching them independently. He had this to say about the passage in question:

7 bear record= bear witness, as in v. 6.

in heaven, &c. The texts read, "the Spirit, and the water", &c, omitting all the words from "in heaven" to "in earth" (v. 8) inclusive. The words are not found in any Gr. MS. before the sixteenth century. They were first seen in the margin of some Latin copies. Thence they have crept into the text.

No harm done?

No matter how well intended, there are penalty provisions within the Bible for doing that sort of thing that I, for one, would not wish to incur.