1 John 5:7-8

[Grant]

PB Friends,

Would you post your opinion as to how to approach 1 John 5:7-8, specifically between KJV and ESV. I normally use ESV and came across this verse on a lesson I am grading on the Trinity for a fellow brother.

a) Click the Poll and feel free to explain in your post which "textual rendering" you feel is wiser to use and/or how you have taught or preached on THIS SPECIFIC SECTION.

b) Specifically, what is your understanding of Spirit, water, and blood in verse 1 John 5:8?

Here are the verses:

KJV:
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.

ESV:
7 For there are three that testify:
8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.

@Moderators: If you think this topic would be better suited in a different forum, feel free to move it.


Edit:
a) I favor the ESV on this section of scripture.
b) For me on v. 8 I think (especially in light of v. 6):
Spirit= Holy Spirit
water = Jesus Christ
blood= Jesus Christ

 

[Taylor]

 

[Grant]

Uh--oh. I promise I am not trying to start a brawl. I sincerely came across this difference TODAY for the first time and would like to hear thoughts.

P.S. Your prefer worms to cherries I see

 

[Taylor]

Uh--oh. I promise I am not trying to start a brawl. I sincerely came across this difference TODAY for the first time and would like to hear thoughts.

I know, brother. It’s just that discussions of translation often get heated here (as elsewhere).

Plus, your question isn’t a translation issue at all; it’s a textual issue. Namely, the textual tradition the KJV used has the “larger” version of 1 John 5:7, while the textual tradition that all modern translations use (except the NKJV, WEB, and MEV) have the “shorter” version, which you noticed. It is not that the ESV translates 1 John 5:7 differently, it is that the ESV’s textual base has almost nothing to translate here.

Textual issues are a bit different than mere translation issues. They deal heavily with underlying theological and philosophical presuppositions regarding the text of holy Scripture, which is why the discussions often get heated.

P.S. Your prefer worms to cherries I see

Possibly...

 

[Grant]

I know, brother. It’s just that discussions of translation often get heated here (as elsewhere).

Plus, your question isn’t a translation issue at all; it’s a textual issue. Namely, the textual tradition the KJV used has the “larger” version of 1 John 5:7, while the textual tradition that all modern translations use (except the NKJV, WEB, and MEV) have the “shorter” version, which you noticed. It is not the the ESV translates 1 John 5:7 differently, it’s that the ESV’s textual base had almost nothing to translate here.

Textual issues are a bit different than mere translation issues. They deal heavily with underlying theological and philosophical presuppositions regarding the text of holy Scripture, which is why the discussions often get heated.



Possibly...

I see...let me see if I can word differently.

 

[Logan]

It has to do with the underlying text used. The KJV is translated from a group of texts commonly known as Textus Receptus, which has its origin in the Byzantine family of texts and the first critical compilation by Erasmus in the 16th century. The manuscript evidence for V 7 is very sparse (4 manuscripts have it in their text and the earliest of these is 14th/15th century although it is in the margin of some going back to the 11th), and Erasmus didn't include it until his third edition of his text. It was however in the Vulgate. Complicating it is that the early church fathers did not seem to make use of this text, particularly in Trinitarian controversies. However, there are numerous Textus Receptus adherents that do believe it to be legitimate and it is given as a proof text in the WCF.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_Comma

 

[Grant]

It has to do with the underlying text used. The KJV is translated from a group of texts commonly known as Textus Receptus, which has its origin in the Byzantine family of texts and the first critical compilation by Erasmus in the 16th century. The manuscript evidence for V 7 is very sparse (4 manuscripts have it in their text and the earliest of these is 14th/15th century although it is in the margin of some going back to the 11th), and Erasmus didn't include it until his third edition of his text. It was however in the Vulgate. Complicating it is that the early church fathers did not seem to make use of this text, particularly in Trinitarian controversies. However, there are numerous Textus Receptus adherents that do believe it to be legitimate and it is given as a proof text in the WCF.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_Comma

Interesting. I guess the proof text still works either way to an extent, The verse was also used in some discipleship materiel focusing on the Trinity (Ligonier).

 

[Romans922]

The answer to your question is based on the larger question of textual criticism. Either the Scriptures have been kept pure in all ages (as our Confession says) and thus you support the Textus Receptus (and translations from that - KJV/NKJV), or the text we have is corrupt in need of putting back together (as the Critical Text advocates state - where you get translations like NIV, NASB, ESV, etc.).

This will determine if there is a long ending of Mark's Gospel, if the adulterous woman account is part of Scripture, and many others...

I hold the Confession's view and thus to the Textus Receptus.

http://textus-receptus.com/wiki/Comma_Johanneum

https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/1-john/5.html

http://www.jeffriddle.net/2016/02/an-internal-argument-for-comma-johanneum.html

https://www.tbsbibles.org/404.aspx?404;http://www.tbsbibles.org:80/pdf_information/40-1.pdf

http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/the-father-the-word-and-the-holy-ghost-in-1-john-57

https://archive.org/details/threewitnessesdi00armf/page/n5

https://archive.org/details/avindicationijo00burggoog/page/n12

https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/1-john-5-7.html

 

[TheOldCourse]

Just curious, why do you favor the ESV rendering in your OP? Just because you like the ESV better or because the KJV is perceived to be outdated? As others have noted, this section is known as the "Comma Johanneum" and is, perhaps, the most prominent passage in the debates over manuscripts and textual criticism. If you search you'll find plenty of threads that discuss the core questions relating to the critical text, majority text, textus receptus, ecclesiastical text, etc. There's a lot to chew on underneath your apparently simple question.

 

[Grant]

Just curious, why do you favor the ESV rendering in your OP? Just because you like the ESV better or because the KJV is perceived to be outdated? As others have noted, this section is known as the "Comma Johanneum" and is, perhaps, the most prominent passage in the debates over manuscripts and textual criticism. If you search you'll find plenty of threads that discuss the core questions relating to the critical text, majority text, textus receptus, ecclesiastical text, etc. There's a lot to chew on underneath your apparently simple question.

Chris,

I did not intend my question to come across as simple but rather as sincere. I merely posed the question as it seemed to me in coming across the difference in my studies. I do not perceive the KJV to be "outdated", it is a beautiful translation and I hold it with much respect. I do prefer the ESV overall, but specifically I do prefer it on this section of scripture as well for the same reasons likely already known to both sides here. I may not be equipped to give as scholarly of a defense as others. Simply put, I have more confidence in the ESV rendering on this section because, it is my understanding that the earliest manuscripts do not render the passage as the KJV does.

However, I do respect Matthew Henry's argument for the KJV's inclusion. I do wish my version of the ESV had a footnote.

 

[Logan]

I hold the Confession's view and thus to the Textus Receptus.

I believe that's begging the question.

 

[Romans922]

I believe that's begging the question.

WCF 1.8 states the Word has been kept pure in all ages. Yet the Critical text opposes this view, as it believes what we have is corrupt and needs piecing back together. The CT is therefore not supported by the Westminster Standards.

The TR is supported by the Standards.

 

[Grant]

Yet the Critical text opposes this view, as it believes what we have is corrupt and needs piecing back together. The CT is therefore not supported by the Westminster Standards.

The TR is supported by the Standards.

My understanding is that CT acknowledges that some manuscripts have a higher quality (based on certain factors of course) than others and would therefore carry more weight in their trustworthiness. I would also venture to say that advocates of Critical Text would give a HARDY amen to WCF 1.8. All that to say, I am not sure that is a fair assessment (your post). The foundational truth expressed is not so much the type of "Textual Criticism" (though highly important), rather the key is the Holy Spirit maintaining the purity through the ages. Of course I could be wrong, but those are my thoughts currently.

The links you provided earlier were very helpful and informative by the way..thank you for sharing.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

It has to do with the underlying text used. The KJV is translated from a group of texts commonly known as Textus Receptus, which has its origin in the Byzantine family of texts and the first critical compilation by Erasmus in the 16th century. The manuscript evidence for V 7 is very sparse (4 manuscripts have it in their text and the earliest of these is 14th/15th century although it is in the margin of some going back to the 11th), and Erasmus didn't include it until his third edition of his text. It was however in the Vulgate. Complicating it is that the early church fathers did not seem to make use of this text, particularly in Trinitarian controversies. However, there are numerous Textus Receptus adherents that do believe it to be legitimate and it is given as a proof text in the WCF.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_Comma

The fact that it appears in the Vulgate (translated 4th Century) undercuts the insinuation that it's a 14th/15th Century (or even 11th Century) addition. God promised to preserve His Word - either He did so, and the Textus Receptus is reliable, or He did not, and we cannot rely on any Scripture.

This is not the only Christological text which was cut out of (or had their Christological meaning removed in) the Alexandrian manuscripts - two other prominent examples are 1 Timothy 3:16 and Romans 14:10

 

[timfost]

I think it's easy for us to blow this point way out of proportion. If the few variances mean one is corrupt, we would also have a corrupt TR since the manuscripts are not all identical. The variances are minuscule and most of the time they have no bearing on meaning. In the few places where it could change the meaning, we can compare scripture with scripture (places where there is no variance between texts) and the issue is clarified.

The idea that preferring the ESV violates a Westminster principle is absurd.

God has preserved His Word. We can read it in the KJV and the ESV.

If we want to make an issue of texts, we could really question why Christ and the apostles used the LXX. The ESV is much more accurate than the LXX.

 

[Parakaleo]

Dear Grant,

The people of God have his perfect word in its entirety. We are not still waiting for all the data to come in, that we could make an improved judgment on what is or isn't to be regarded as the word of God. The word God has given is self-attesting.

I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live. John 11:25

I ask you, could any amount of new manuscript evidence or cutting-edge critical scholarship convince you to disbelieve that these are the very words of God? Why not? In answering that question, perhaps you'll find why I so strongly defend the Comma Johanneum.

Warm Regards,

 

[Grant]

I ask you, could any amount of new manuscript evidence or cutting-edge critical scholarship convince you to disbelieve that these are the very words of God? Why not?

Blake,

Thanks for sharing. I guess I would answer “Yes” if somehow we discovered older manuscripts or an original. But again I am a total newbie when it comes Textual Criticism. I am assuming your “words of God” means KJV version of 1 John 5:7.

That same argument could have likely been used against the KJV when it first came out, as it is my current understanding that the KJV was not the first English translation.

But as in all ages the Lord has provided his people exactly what they need. I enjoy and trust both the ESV and the KJV, but I probably am on the opposite side of the coin from you on this verse

Again, thank you for weighing in with though provoking questions.

 

[TheOldCourse]

Chris,

I did not intend my question to come across as simple but rather as sincere. I merely posed the question as it seemed to me in coming across the difference in my studies. I do not perceive the KJV to be "outdated", it is a beautiful translation and I hold it with much respect. I do prefer the ESV overall, but specifically I do prefer it on this section of scripture as well for the same reasons likely already known to both sides here. I may not be equipped to give as scholarly of a defense as others. Simply put, I have more confidence in the ESV rendering on this section because, it is my understanding that the earliest manuscripts do not render the passage as the KJV does.

However, I do respect Matthew Henry's argument for the KJV's inclusion. I do wish my version of the ESV had a footnote.

Grant,

I did not mean simple in a derisive manner, but merely to say that to answer your question, which textual rendering of the passage is preferred, is simple but the reasoning underneath must needs be complex. Your question did not initially suggest that you were aware of the textual issues that lay behind the different renderings but that may not have been the case.

 

[TheOldCourse]

Blake,

Thanks for sharing. I guess I would answer “Yes” if somehow we discovered older manuscripts or an original. But again I am a total newbie when it comes Textual Criticism. I am assuming your “words of God” means KJV version of 1 John 5:7.

That same argument could have likely been used against the KJV when it first came out, as it is my current understanding that the KJV was not the first English translation.

But as in all ages the Lord has provided his people exactly what they need. I enjoy and trust both the ESV and the KJV, but I probably am on the opposite side of the coin from you on this verse

Again, thank you for weighing in with though provoking questions.

That would be the case if we were merely addressing translations but we are addressing textual philosophies. The KJV was a new translation but, like prior English translations, regarded the authentic text of the Scriptures to be the one that was preserved in and received by the church catholic (small "c"). It was an improvement on previous translations but not a radical departure.

Most of those who would choose the KJV here would not be opposed to a new translation, so long as it was translated from substantially similar manuscript basis as the KJV. They believe that the Holy Spirit took an active role in preserving the text of the Word throughout church history and that should the basis of textual decisions. Later translations, like the ESV, are based on a textual philosophy that assumes that the texts were corrupted while in use by the church and the true readings of many such passages were effectively lost to the church for over a millennium. Today, it's the job of the textual critic to recover those lost readings. In some ways, to my thinking, it's similar to a Baptist "trail of blood" ecclesiology.

 

[Taylor]

Most of those who would choose the KJV here would not be opposed to a new translation, so long as it was translated from substantially similar manuscript basis.

I wish a team of serious Reformed scholars (or a Reformed denomination) would do a fresh translation of the Textus Receptus. Seriously. Right now, the NKJV and the MEV are all we have (in terms of modern translations).

 

[Grant]

...

That would be the case if we were merely addressing translations but we are addressing textual philosophies. The KJV was a new translation but, like prior English translations, regarded the authentic text of the Scriptures to be the one that was preserved in and received by the church catholic (small "c"). It was an improvement on previous translations but not a radical departure.

Most of those who would choose the KJV here would not be opposed to a new translation, so long as it was translated from substantially similar manuscript basis as the KJV. They believe that the Holy Spirit took an active role in preserving the text of the Word throughout church history and that should the basis of textual decisions. Later translations, like the ESV, are based on a textual philosophy that assumes that the texts were corrupted while in use by the church and the true readings of many such passages were effectively lost to the church for over a millennium. Today, it's the job of the textual critic to recover those lost readings. In some ways, to my thinking, it's similar to a Baptist "trail of blood" ecclesiology.

Chris that helps. Well said!

 

[Grant]

That would be the case if we were merely addressing translations but we are addressing textual philosophies. The KJV was a new translation but, like prior English translations, regarded the authentic text of the Scriptures to be the one that was preserved in and received by the church catholic (small "c"). It was an improvement on previous translations but not a radical departure.

Most of those who would choose the KJV here would not be opposed to a new translation, so long as it was translated from substantially similar manuscript basis as the KJV. They believe that the Holy Spirit took an active role in preserving the text of the Word throughout church history and that should the basis of textual decisions. Later translations, like the ESV, are based on a textual philosophy that assumes that the texts were corrupted while in use by the church and the true readings of many such passages were effectively lost to the church for over a millennium. Today, it's the job of the textual critic to recover those lost readings. In some ways, to my thinking, it's similar to a Baptist "trail of blood" ecclesiology.

So with the KJV it is less about it having the least amount of errors..... and more about the manuscripts it is based on, which per your comments were the manuscripts accepted by the Church.... is that correct?

 

[Parakaleo]

So with the KJV it is less about it having the least amount of errors..... and more about the manuscripts it is based on, which per your comments were the manuscripts accepted by the Church.... is that correct?

Bravo!

 

[Grant]

Bravo!

 

[TheOldCourse]

So with the KJV it is less about it having the least amount of errors..... and more about the manuscripts it is based on, which per your comments were the manuscripts accepted by the Church.... is that correct?

Yes. It's based on the Textus Receptus ("Received Text"). Some of the Reformed have preferred to call it the Ecclesiastical Text. They place more weight on the textual families that have been used and attested by the church. Most modern translations are from a Critical Text that is based on text families that are perceived to be older (among other criteria) but often were not well known to the mainline church throughout the ages. You'll find a lot of good threads and info about textual criticism on here where the relevant arguments have been discussed.

 

[Grant]

Bravo!

So would the NKJV also be based on those same KJV manuscripts?

 

[Taylor]

So would the NKJV also be based on those manuscripts?

Yes, it is (or at least claims to be).

 

[TheOldCourse]

So would the NKJV also be based on those same KJV manuscripts?

More or less. It's a bit of an eclectic translation that, while it is based primarily on the received text, it does borrow from other textual groups (especially in the OT). It's a good translation, especially for those for whom the KJV is hard to understand, but it won't satisfy most TR purists. Here's one critique of it from a TR perspective:

https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.tbsbibles...0F/The-New-King-James-Version-A-Critique_.pdf

 

[Taylor]

You'll find a lot of good threads and info about textual criticism on here where the relevant arguments have been discussed.

And the good thing about the threads here is that they are generally well-researched (more so from a few particular members here, such as Rev. Winzer and Pastor Rafalsky), and there tend not to be the Steven-Anderson-type "KJV-Onlyists" here, either. Trust me, there is more information than you could possibly want in these threads.

Also, here is another good resource which I have been slowly making my way through is this lecture series by Dr. Michael Barrett. It's good.

(For the record, I am still unsure where I land in this whole issue, but these are some good resources I've found for the Textus Receptus "side."

 

[Stephen L Smith]

But again I am a total newbie when it comes Textual Criticism

Grant, I am someone who personally believes the text underlying the ESV is the best text (overall). If you want a substantial defense of this view, Dr James Price's free e-book on textual issues is one of the best http://www.jamesdprice.com/images/33_King_James_Onlyism.pdf

The Reformed Scholar, Dr Edward Hills, has one of the best defences of the Received Text. Dr Price critiques him in the e-book I mentioned above.