1 John 5:7

Status
Not open for further replies.

weinhold

Puritan Board Freshman
Here's a question then: Doesn't the main thrust of Wainwright and Wescott's argument remain given the apparatus in UBS/4? I borrowed a copy from a friend at church, and the apparatus doesn't seem to support the KJV rendering of 1 John 5:7-8.
 

DocCas

Inactive User
and the apparatus doesn't seem to support the KJV rendering of 1 John 5:7-8.
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!
 

VirginiaHuguenot

Puritanboard Librarian
For what it's worth, The Westminster Standards on 1 John 5.7:

Confession, Chap. 1, Sec. 2:

II. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these:

Of the New Testament:

The Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; The Acts of the Apostles, Paul's Epistles, To the Romans, Corinthians I., Corinthians II., Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians I., Thessalonians II., To Timothy I., To Timothy II., To Titus, To Philemon, The Epistle to the Hebrews, The Epistle of James, The first and second Epistles of Peter, The first, second, and third Epistles of John, The Epistle of Jude, The Revelation of John.

All which are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life.(g)

(g) Luke 16:29, 31; Eph. 2:20; Rev. 22:18, 19; II Tim. 3:16.

Confession, Chap. 2, Sec. 3:
III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.(o) The Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding: the Son is eternally begotten of the Father: (p) the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.(q)

(o) I John 5:7; Matt. 3:16, 17; Matt. 28:19; II Cor. 13:14.
(p) John 1:14, 18.
(q) John 15:26; Gal. 4:6.

Shorter Catechism:
Q6: How many persons are there in the Godhead?
A6: There are three persons in the Godhead; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost;[1] and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory.[2]

1. Matt. 28:19
2. I John 5:7

Larger Catechism:
Q9: How many persons are there in the Godhead?
A9: There be three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one true, eternal God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory; although distinguished by their personal properties.[1]

1. I John 5:7; Matt. 3:16-17; 28:19; II Cor. 13:14; John 10:30
 

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.
 

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
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
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.

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
 

biblelighthouse

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
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


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
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
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

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
 

Peter

Puritan Board Junior
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.

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?
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
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.

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

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
Originally posted by fredtgreco
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 ?

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:

In fact, a number of times the New Testament not only points to the faithfulness of Christ, but does so in such a way that it stresses that our salvation and sanctification are based on the faithfulness of Christ Himself. The following verses as translated in the NET Bible illustrate this:

Romans 3:22 namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction,

Romans 3:26 This was also to demonstrate his righteousness in the present time, so that he would be just and the justifier of the one who lives because of Jesus´ faithfulness.

Galatians 2:16 And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by the faithfulness of Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. So the life I now live in the body, I live because of the faithfulness of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Galatians 3:22 But the scripture imprisoned everything and everyone under sin so that the promise could be given"”because of the faithfulness of Jesus Christ"”to those who believe.

Ephesians 3:11 This was according to the eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord, 3:12 in whom we have boldness and confident access to God because of Christ´s faithfulness.

Philippians 3:9 and be found in him, not because of having my own righteousness derived from the law, but because of having the righteousness that comes by way of Christ´s faithfulness"”a righteousness from God that is based on Christ´s faithfulness.

These verses have traditionally been translated "œfaith in Christ" rather than "œChrist´s faithfulness," but an increasing number of New Testament scholars are arguing that the Greek construction (pistis Christou) and similar phrases in Paul´s writings (Rom 3:22, 26; Gal 2:16, 20; 3:22; Phil 3:9) involve what is known in Greek grammar as a subjective genitive and means "œChrist´s faith" or "œChrist´s faithfulness." Wallace, who notes that the grammar is not decisive, nevertheless suggests that "œthe faith/faithfulness of Christ is not a denial of faith in Christ as a Pauline concept (for the idea is expressed in many of the same contexts, only with the verb pisteuo"ž rather than the noun), but implies that the object of faith is a worthy object, for he himself is faithful" (Exegetical Syntax, p. 116). While the apostle Paul elsewhere clearly teaches justification is by faith alone in Christ alone, the focus of these passages is not on our faith, but on the reliable object of our faith because of Christ´s faithfulness. It stresses that our faith is anchored in a worthy object"”a tremendous assurance for the Christian´s faith.

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
Originally posted by OS_X
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.

:amen: (which is good, because it's probably not original:worms::worms::worms:)
 

kevin.carroll

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by Peter
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.

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.

Yep. We both have our presuppostions and neither of us will budge. So why aregue it again? :handshake:
 

Peter

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by kevin.carroll
Originally posted by Peter
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.

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.

Yep. We both have our presuppostions and neither of us will budge. So why aregue it again? :handshake:

Well, our presuppositions are challengable, but im not interested in arguing. A debate for another time? :handshake:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top