1 John 5:7
- Thread starter Solo Christo
- Start date
- Status
Who said it did? The point was that the statement "Westcott points out that the words are not found in any independent Greek manuscript, in any independent Greek writer,"
has now been proven to be incorrect. The UBS/4 cite says otherwise. And,
"in any early Latin Father, or in any ancient version except the Latin, and not in the earliest form of that."
has been proven to be incorrect. The USB/4 cite says otherwise.
weinhold
Puritan Board Freshman
Oh, I guess I misunderstood. I thought that you were saying the verse should be rendered to explicitly refer to the trinity, but now it seems that you do not take that stance. Thanks for the clarification.
Also, I am interested in possibly going to seminary at some point. Could you direct me to San Diego Baptist Seminary's website? Thanks!
Also, I am interested in possibly going to seminary at some point. Could you direct me to San Diego Baptist Seminary's website? Thanks!
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
For what it's worth, The Westminster Standards on 1 John 5.7:
Confession, Chap. 1, Sec. 2:
Confession, Chap. 2, Sec. 3:
Shorter Catechism:
Larger Catechism:
Confession, Chap. 1, Sec. 2:
Confession, Chap. 2, Sec. 3:
Shorter Catechism:
Larger Catechism:
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Andrew, come on . . . do you really think the people drafting the WCF in the 1600s had anywhere near the textual evidence to consider as we do now?
You are a brilliant man, Andrew, and I highly respect you. I also highly respect the confessions. But using the WCF to support the inclusion of 1 John 5:7 just makes no sense at all, in my opinion.
The drafters of the WCF were godly, brilliant men. But I seriously doubt that they had intense comparative knowledge of all available Greek & Latin MSS, compared to that of Christian scholars today.
I think Dr. Daniel Wallace is better equipped to make decisions like this than Calvin, Luther, Twisse, or anyone alive in the 16th-17th centuries.
There is such a thing as holding to a confession WAY TOO TIGHTLY.
You are a brilliant man, Andrew, and I highly respect you. I also highly respect the confessions. But using the WCF to support the inclusion of 1 John 5:7 just makes no sense at all, in my opinion.
The drafters of the WCF were godly, brilliant men. But I seriously doubt that they had intense comparative knowledge of all available Greek & Latin MSS, compared to that of Christian scholars today.
I think Dr. Daniel Wallace is better equipped to make decisions like this than Calvin, Luther, Twisse, or anyone alive in the 16th-17th centuries.
There is such a thing as holding to a confession WAY TOO TIGHTLY.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
I said, For what it's worth. I don't expect many modern-day Puritans to accept 1 John 5.7 as Scripture or to adhere to the 1646 Confession fully. However, while confessing that I am not a Greek scholar, I accept both without reservation. There are many respected modern scholars today, among them Theodore Letis of blessed memory, though who do accept 1 John 5.7 as canonical.
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Thank you for the info. I am shocked to hear that highly educated men like Rushdoony and Letis accept 1 John 5:7 as canonical.
As I said in a different thread, I WISH it were canonical. It would be great to have a concise little "Trinity proof text" in my Bible (not that it's difficult to prove otherwise).
Is there any well-written book or internet-site you recommend, which gives good reasons for accepting the canonicity of this particular verse? . . . a book or website that you yourself agree with?
Thank you,
Joseph
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
Joseph,
Here are a couple of articles that have been profitable reading for me:
1 John 5:7 (Johannine Comma) by Dr. Thomas Holland
Vindication of 1 John 5:7 summarized from Discussions of Robert Lewis Dabney by Banner of Truth
Book review of A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8 by Michael Maynard
Here are a couple of articles that have been profitable reading for me:
1 John 5:7 (Johannine Comma) by Dr. Thomas Holland
Vindication of 1 John 5:7 summarized from Discussions of Robert Lewis Dabney by Banner of Truth
Book review of A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8 by Michael Maynard
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Andrew, thank you very much for the resources.
I have to admit I'm pretty skeptical, having read what I have of textual criticism.
But I can also say that I would be very happy to agree with you. I do hope I become convinced by what is in these books.
Thank you,
Joseph
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
You're welcome, brother. There are a couple of additional resources that may also be of interest:
The Johannine Comma Archives
Treatise by Frederick Nolan @ the American Presbyterian Church website
Rather, eastern (read Arian) texts are notorious for *subtracting* trinitarian formulas. Is it any coincidence the anti-trinitarian manuscripts which are the basis of the CT came from the starting point and epicenter of the 1st wave of the arian scourge viz. Alexandria? I trust orthodox scribes to have been faithful to the orginials (ie not violating the 9th commandment) over heretics.
larryjf
Puritan Board Senior
Interesting statements on 1 Jn 5:7 that i found on numerous web pages defending the verse...
"What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus' promise to include the Comma Johanneum if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent suspicion that MS 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H. J. DeJonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion." Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of The New Testament, 3rd Edition, p 291 fn 2.
Beza said that 1 Jn 5:7 was found in many of the manuscripts of his time.
Calvin said it was found in the most approved copies.
Stephanus said that of the 16 copies he had, 9 contained 1 John 5:7
John Gill said,"It is cited by Athanasius about the year 350 (Contra Arium p. 109); and before him by Cyprian in the middle of the "third" century, about the year 250 (De Unitate Eccles. p. 255. & in Ep. 73. ad Jubajan, p. 184.) and is referred to by Tertullian about, the year 200 (Contr. Praxeam, c. 25 ) and which was within a hundred years, or little more, of the writing of the epistle; which may be enough to satisfy anyone of the genuineness of this passage."
Bishop Middleton in his book, "œDoctrine of the Greek Article," argues that verse seven must be a part of the text according to the Greek structure of the passage.
In his commentary, Matthew Henry has a note that says we must have verse seven if we are to have proper Greek in verse eight.
Any comments on these statements, their accuracy, or their importance in this discussion?
"What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus' promise to include the Comma Johanneum if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent suspicion that MS 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H. J. DeJonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion." Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of The New Testament, 3rd Edition, p 291 fn 2.
Beza said that 1 Jn 5:7 was found in many of the manuscripts of his time.
Calvin said it was found in the most approved copies.
Stephanus said that of the 16 copies he had, 9 contained 1 John 5:7
John Gill said,"It is cited by Athanasius about the year 350 (Contra Arium p. 109); and before him by Cyprian in the middle of the "third" century, about the year 250 (De Unitate Eccles. p. 255. & in Ep. 73. ad Jubajan, p. 184.) and is referred to by Tertullian about, the year 200 (Contr. Praxeam, c. 25 ) and which was within a hundred years, or little more, of the writing of the epistle; which may be enough to satisfy anyone of the genuineness of this passage."
Bishop Middleton in his book, "œDoctrine of the Greek Article," argues that verse seven must be a part of the text according to the Greek structure of the passage.
In his commentary, Matthew Henry has a note that says we must have verse seven if we are to have proper Greek in verse eight.
Any comments on these statements, their accuracy, or their importance in this discussion?
Joseph,
I don't think this is open and shut either way, but you are aware that Wallace has made some really big blunders - most notably his espousal of the subjective genitive in Gal. 2:16 ?
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
Fred,
I did not know that. Thank you for the info. I looked around after reading your post and found this excerpt in one of Wallace's articles:
Unfortunately, I don't know enough Greek to know who's blundering what.
But this is very interesting stuff, and I look forward to trying to sort it all out after I have studied Greek for a few years.
kevin.carroll
Puritan Board Junior
(which is good, because it's probably not original
)
kevin.carroll
Puritan Board Junior
Yep. We both have our presuppostions and neither of us will budge. So why aregue it again?
- Status
Similar threads
