1 John 5:7

[Solo Christo]

I never noticed this translation difference until Matt highlighted Thomas Watson's piece on the Trinity. The KJV seems to drive the Trinity home with a bit more force.


KJV: 6This is he 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.

7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.


ESV: 6This is he who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.

7For there are three that testify:

8the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.


NASB: 6This 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.

7For there are three that testify:

8the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

This is a powerful verse. I know that its authenticity is questioned by many, but I am persuaded that it is the very word of God, testifying to the remarkable truth of the Trinity.

 

[BlackCalvinist]

It's an interesting verse. I know it shows up in the Latin Vulgate a lot from 4th Century onward and the first recorded use of it (ironically) is by Marcion.

I'm not too worried over it, either way. The trinity doesn't stand or fall on 1 John 5:7.

 

[Authorised]

 

[BlackCalvinist]

 

[larryjf]

Whether or not 1 Jn 5:7 would be found in the original manuscript or not we may never know.
We do know however that it speaks the truth. Even those who do not believe it is authentic do not deny that it is truth.

 

[SRoper]

While it may be true, the first time that it appears in Greek is quite late (16th Century?). Some believe that it may have entered into the Vulgate from Augustine's notes on the verses. In any case, I find it a serious blow to the authority of the TR. Even if you prefer the Byzantine text-type, I would think you would be unhappy with the insertion from the Vulgate into the TR.

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
This is a powerful verse. I know that its authenticity is questioned by many, but I am persuaded that it is the very word of God, testifying to the remarkable truth of the Trinity.

Powerful verse maybe, but it has very, very weak manuscript support. It appears to be a western (read RCC) and very late addition to the original. Western texts are NOTORIOUS for adding trinitarian formulas. While we can affirm the Trinity we can also be fairly certain that John did not write those words.

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
This is a powerful verse. I know that its authenticity is questioned by many, but I am persuaded that it is the very word of God, testifying to the remarkable truth of the Trinity.

Powerful verse maybe, but it has very, very weak manuscript support. It appears to be a western (read RCC) and very late addition to the original. Western texts are NOTORIOUS for adding trinitarian formulas. While we can affirm the Trinity we can also be fairly certain that John did not write those words.

BTW, this is yet another reason not to hold to a TR position. The TR is based on the Western text tradition which is simply inferior.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
This is a powerful verse. I know that its authenticity is questioned by many, but I am persuaded that it is the very word of God, testifying to the remarkable truth of the Trinity.

Powerful verse maybe, but it has very, very weak manuscript support. It appears to be a western (read RCC) and very late addition to the original. Western texts are NOTORIOUS for adding trinitarian formulas. While we can affirm the Trinity we can also be fairly certain that John did not write those words.

BTW, this is yet another reason not to hold to a TR position. The TR is based on the Western text tradition which is simply inferior.

And it would be better to hold to the Critical Text, which is based in large part on a manuscript found in a Vatican trash bin?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

My pastor is preaching through 1 John (up to 63 sermons now) and defended 1JO 5:7 a couple of weeks back. The audio is on the page below.
http://www.fpcr.org/fpdb/OOW/2005/03272005.htm

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

"My hope is built on nothing less than Scofield's notes and Moody Press"

 

[SolaScriptura]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
This is a powerful verse. I know that its authenticity is questioned by many, but I am persuaded that it is the very word of God, testifying to the remarkable truth of the Trinity.

Powerful verse maybe, but it has very, very weak manuscript support. It appears to be a western (read RCC) and very late addition to the original. Western texts are NOTORIOUS for adding trinitarian formulas. While we can affirm the Trinity we can also be fairly certain that John did not write those words.

BTW, this is yet another reason not to hold to a TR position. The TR is based on the Western text tradition which is simply inferior.

And it would be better to hold to the Critical Text, which is based in large part on a manuscript found in a Vatican trash bin?

Hey... if Rome disapproves of it then that gives it instant credibility in my book!

 

[BlackCalvinist]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
"My hope is built on nothing less than Scofield's notes and Moody Press"

*thinks of additional verses to add to this.....*

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Hey... if Rome disapproves of it then that gives it instant credibility in my book!

Aaaaaamen.

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
This is a powerful verse. I know that its authenticity is questioned by many, but I am persuaded that it is the very word of God, testifying to the remarkable truth of the Trinity.

Powerful verse maybe, but it has very, very weak manuscript support. It appears to be a western (read RCC) and very late addition to the original. Western texts are NOTORIOUS for adding trinitarian formulas. While we can affirm the Trinity we can also be fairly certain that John did not write those words.

BTW, this is yet another reason not to hold to a TR position. The TR is based on the Western text tradition which is simply inferior.

And it would be better to hold to the Critical Text, which is based in large part on a manuscript found in a Vatican trash bin?

Fred, you know better than that! You talk ask if the CT is a single manuscript.

[Edited on 4-14-2005 by kevin.carroll]

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
This is a powerful verse. I know that its authenticity is questioned by many, but I am persuaded that it is the very word of God, testifying to the remarkable truth of the Trinity.

Powerful verse maybe, but it has very, very weak manuscript support. It appears to be a western (read RCC) and very late addition to the original. Western texts are NOTORIOUS for adding trinitarian formulas. While we can affirm the Trinity we can also be fairly certain that John did not write those words.

BTW, this is yet another reason not to hold to a TR position. The TR is based on the Western text tradition which is simply inferior.

And it would be better to hold to the Critical Text, which is based in large part on a manuscript found in a Vatican trash bin?

Fred, you know better than that! You talk ask if the CT is a single manuscript.

[Edited on 4-14-2005 by kevin.carroll]

You are right; it is actually based for the most part on two:

1. Codex Vaticanus (the aforementioned)
2. Codex Sinaiticus

There are some papyri, and other manuscripts, but when (for example) the NIV mentions "the oldest and best manuscripts" Vaticanus and Sinaiticus is what they mean.

 

[fredtgreco]

By the way, I am not a proponent of the inclusion of 1 John 5:7. I just am not a CT guy - as I have stated many times in many threads.

 

[DocCas]

This is one of the really tough verses to deal with. As you know, if you read the other thread in which I posted my personal guidelines for doing (lower) textual criticism, I have some things I look at to help me understand why a reading is present or absent in the published texts.

1. The first thing I look at is the number of witnesses. It is clear, at first glance that the comma is only represented by about 10 witnesses, the oldest of which, 221, is a 10th century mss with the comma included in the margin as a variant reading. 2318 can be disregarded as it dates to the 18th century, well after the TR. 61 (16th century) and 629 (a diglot containing both Greek and Latin versions and usually dated to the 14th or 15th century) contain most of the comma but omit part of it. That leaves us with 88, which only contains the comma as a marginal variant, 429, which does the same thing, and 636 which also contains the comma as a marginal variant. 918 contains the reading in the text but with minor variants. The reading is contained the some lectionaries as published in Apostoliki Diakonia, and is in the Clementine Vulgate. The comma is also contained in the Armenian version as quoted by one of the Patristics. It is also found in the Latin lectionary "q" and is quoted by Cyprian, Pseudo-Cyprian, Priscillian and other Patristics. That is not a lot of manuscript evidence, even bearing in mind that copies of 1 John older than the 12th century are some of the rarest mss of any book. Insufficient evidence on which to base a certain conclusion.

2. Age. The most ancient cites date to the 4th century but none are older than that. No conclusive evidence.

3. Historicity. Mixed. Latin church seemed to use it but the Greek church seems not to have done so. No compelling evidence.

4. Geography. Both the majority of the Byzantine mss and the majority of the Alexandrian mss omit the verse. That is quite telling.

5. Agreement. Doubtful. Most Greek manuscripts omit it but the only Greek mss which include it are Byzantine in general tone. The Greek Patristics don't quote it and the Latin Patristics do.

6. Credibility. Again, mixed.

7. Grammar, syntax, and immediate context. Some believe this is where the most compelling evidence in support of the comma is found. There are three nouns in the Greek which are all neuter (Spirit, water, and blood). But, they are followed by a masculine participle. Verse 6 has the same participle, but it is neuter, which, in the context of verse 6 is correct Greek grammar. But, to have a masculine participle in verse 8 and three neuter nouns is claimed to be an error in Greek grammar. However, if you include the two masculine nouns from the comma, "Father" and "Son," followed by the neuter noun "Spirit" the participle rightly follows the masculine gender of the two controlling nouns and is masculine.

(And I know that John seems to have deliberately violated this rule of Greek grammar in John 16:13-14 but that is, in my opinion, not a violation but John is referring back to verse 7 and using "'o paraklhtos" in verse 7 as the antecedent, not "pneuma" of verse 13.)

So, I view the comma as being probable but not certain. However, as it does not introduce a theological error into the text, I don't have a problem with the versions which include it. But I would not use the comma to defend the Deity of Christ when arguing with an Arian. But then, I wouldn't have to. The NT is replete with examples of the Triune nature of the Godhead.

 

[Authorised]

Dr. Cassidy, what is your opinion regarding the evidence for the comma in early Latin MSS for this verse, considering that those Latin MSS would have been translated from contemporary Greek MSS?

 

[DocCas]

Originally posted by Authorised
Dr. Cassidy, what is your opinion regarding the evidence for the comma in early Latin MSS for this verse, considering that those Latin MSS would have been translated from contemporary Greek MSS?

Good question (the old teacher said).

The evidence from old Latin manuscripts is just as bad as the evidence from the old Greek manuscripts!

Manuscript "m" which dates to around the 5th century contains the comma as does "q" a 6th-7th century Latin manuscript. The rest of the old Latin manuscripts which contain the comma, "c," "p," "dem," and "div" date from the 12th to the 13th centuries, well after the Vulgate of Jerome had risen to ascendancy.

What we do have is possible (or even probable) citations from the Latin Patristics as early as the 2nd and 3rd centuries which cite the comma prior to the age of the oldest Latin manuscripts.

Now, your question is very telling. If the earliest old Latin manuscripts were translated from the Greek New Testament, which is a logical conclusion, where did the Latin reading of the comma come from? Did it originate in a Greek exemplar or was it added to the Latin translation by later correctors or commentators?

The answer is, we don't know. The problem is, of course, that of all the old Latin manuscripts we have available only about 10% of them contain the catholic epistles and only about half of that 10% contain 1 John 5.

 

[weinhold]

Arthur W. Wainwright, The Trinity in the New Testament. (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2001) 245.

"Nor can the version of 1 John 5:7,8 which refers to Father, Word, and Spirit, be regarded as part of the authentic text. The Byzantine text reads: 'There are three who bear witness in heaven; the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.' This is a gloss which may have arisen in Spain. Westcott points out that the words are not found in any independent Greek manuscript, in any independent Greek writer, in any early Latin Father, or in any ancient version except the Latin, and not in the earliest form of that."*

*Westcott, The Epistles of John, 202-9

 

[DocCas]

Originally posted by weinhold
Arthur W. Wainwright, The Trinity in the New Testament. (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2001) 245.

"Nor can the version of 1 John 5:7,8 which refers to Father, Word, and Spirit, be regarded as part of the authentic text. The Byzantine text reads: 'There are three who bear witness in heaven; the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.' This is a gloss which may have arisen in Spain. Westcott points out that the words are not found in any independent Greek manuscript, in any independent Greek writer, in any early Latin Father, or in any ancient version except the Latin, and not in the earliest form of that."*

*Westcott, The Epistles of John, 202-9

I wonder why the textual apparatus of UBS/4 lists 10 Greek manuscripts (with minor variants), one lectionary, the Arminian version, and says that the comma is quoted by Cyprian, Pseudo-Cyprian, and Priscillian (all with minor variants) and Speculum, Varimadum, Pseudo-Vigilius, and Fulgentius all quoting the comma in Latin exactly as found in the old Latin? Does he not consider 258AD (Cyprian) "early?" Or the 4th century (Pseudo Cyprian)? Or 385 (Priscillian)? Granted the rest are 5th or 6th century but 3rd and 4th century manuscripts are usually considered "early." If Aleph and B can be called "oldest" and date to the mid 4th century why wouldn't 3rd and 4th century Latin manuscripts be considered "early." At least 2 of them are ante-nicean.

 

[street preacher]

Look guys, take it from one of the best greek scholars that there are, ME, if the ESV, OR THE NASB, doesn't say it then it doesn't exist!

 

[weinhold]

Originally posted by DocCas
I wonder why the textual apparatus of UBS/4 lists 10 Greek manuscripts (with minor variants), one lectionary, the Arminian version, and says that the comma is quoted by Cyprian, Pseudo-Cyprian, and Priscillian (all with minor variants) and Speculum, Varimadum, Pseudo-Vigilius, and Fulgentius all quoting the comma in Latin exactly as found in the old Latin? Does he not consider 258AD (Cyprian) "early?" Or the 4th century (Pseudo Cyprian)? Or 385 (Priscillian)? Granted the rest are 5th or 6th century but 3rd and 4th century manuscripts are usually considered "early." If Aleph and B can be called "oldest" and date to the mid 4th century why wouldn't 3rd and 4th century Latin manuscripts be considered "early." At least 2 of them are ante-nicean.

1) I'm no greek scholar, and unfortunately I only have the 2nd edition of the UBS, which is why I quoted Wainwright (who quotes Wescott)

2) Are you certain that the textual apparatus is referring to the tradition which renders verse 8 "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" and not "the spirit and the water and the blood" which appears in the main body text? If so, then that is very interesting.

 

[DocCas]

Yes, I am certain as to what the apparatus is addressing. My post was an old teacher reminding everyone that sources should be checked for accuracy prior to putting too much store in them.

The note deals with the reading in Greek, "marturountes 'en tw o'uranw, 'o pathr 'o logos kai to 'agion pneuma, kai o'utoi oi treis 'en e'isin. (8) kai treis e'isin o'i marturountes 'en th gh to pneuma kai to 'udwr kai to a'ima" and in Latin, "testimonium dicunt (variant: dant) in terra, spiritus (variant: spiritus et) aqua et sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt in Christo Iesu. (8) et tres sunt, qui testimonium dicunt in caelo, pater, verbum et spiritus."

 

[weinhold]

Originally posted by DocCas
Yes, I am certain as to what the apparatus is addressing. My post was an old teacher reminding everyone that sources should be checked for accuracy prior to putting too much store in them.

The note deals with the reading in Greek, "marturountes 'en tw o'uranw, 'o pathr 'o logos kai to 'agion pneuma, kai o'utoi oi treis 'en e'isin. (8) kai treis e'isin o'i marturountes 'en th gh to pneuma kai to 'udwr kai to a'ima" and in Latin, "testimonium dicunt (variant: dant) in terra, spiritus (variant: spiritus et) aqua et sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt in Christo Iesu. (8) et tres sunt, qui testimonium dicunt in caelo, pater, verbum et spiritus."

Gosh, this is fascinating stuff! One more question: are you just questioning the validity of Wainwright's methodology regarding 1 John 5:8, or are you saying that the passage should be rendered so that it explicitly refers to the trinity?

 

[DocCas]

I am calling into question the validity of both Wainwright's and Westcott's statements. Later scholarship has determined them to be incorrect.

I believe the passage should be rendered as closely to the original reading as possible. Knowing what the original reading was is a matter for godly scholarship to debate and offer evidence and opinion about. Then we will all have to make up our minds where we are going to stand on the issue.

 

[weinhold]

Originally posted by DocCas
I am calling into question the validity of both Wainwright's and Westcott's statements. Later scholarship has determined them to be incorrect.

Thanks for the clarification. Could you point me toward any of the scholarship you mentioned that proves Wainwright and Wescott wrong on this specific point? I'd like to do a little personal study on this topic. Thanks!

 

[DocCas]

Originally posted by weinhold
Thanks for the clarification. Could you point me toward any of the scholarship you mentioned that proves Wainwright and Wescott wrong on this specific point? I'd like to do a little personal study on this topic. Thanks!

I thought I already had. The textual apparatus of USB 4. The 10 Greek manuscripts listed in that apparatus. The comma being quoted by Cyprian, Pseudo-Cyprian, and Priscillian (all with minor variants) and Speculum, Varimadum, Pseudo-Vigilius, and Fulgentius.