James White & The Received Text

[MW]

Turretin's Opera, vol. 4, pp. 289ff., contains the theological disputation on the Three Heavenly Witnesses. The respondent is Benedict Pictet.

Pictet's view is expressed in his Christian Theology, p. 103: "There are, therefore, three persons in one divine essence; and this is clearly established by the passage in 1 John v. 7, which is brought forward and quoted by Cyprian, although not read in many copies. A far greater number of reasons can be alleged why this passage should be said to have been struck out by heretics, than to have been inserted by the orthodox. It was more to the advantage of heretics to suppress this passage, than to that of the orthodox to add it, because, if it were genuine, the heresy of the former would be entirely overthrown; if spurious, the orthodox creed was in no danger, being clearly established from other passages of scripture. The connection also of the text confirms our opinion; for unless this verse be admitted, there seems no reason why John should say, 'There are three that bear witness in earth,' not having before said any thing of 'three witnesses in heaven.' Nor can it be objected that these words in earth, were also added afterwards, for the contrary appears from verse 9, where mention is made both of the divine and the human testimony, 'If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater.'"

It will be observed that the number of copies is not relevant to its inclusion. It has early support in Cyprian, there is greater reason why it would have been suppressed than added, and internally the passage is coherent with its inclusion.

 

[Logan]

It will be observed that the number of copies is not relevant to its inclusion. It has early support in Cyprian, there is greater reason why it would have been suppressed than added, and internally the passage is coherent with its inclusion.

Early support has some weight but that's certainly not the criteria for whether it is Scripture or not, and isn't it disputed that this was what Cyprian was actually referring to?

I don't see any reason to think it must have either been suppressed by heretics or added by orthodox. A very reasonable third alternative is that it was a marginal note, as a comment on 1 John 5:8, which a later copyist added, which is why it doesn't exist in most copies and the few it does being very late (14th century being the earliest I think).

 

[MW]

Looking at it in terms of the reformed orthodox, Pictet has fairly represented the rationale behind its inclusion. It goes to demonstrate that the reformed orthodox did not share the same view of manuscript evidence as the empirical science of textual criticism demands.

The Cyprian citation has been disputed, but even some weighty critics who consider the Comma to be an insertion have conceded it is a genuine citation. One must presume the allegorical interpretation of 1 John 5:8 in order to suppose that Cyprian was not quoting the Comma, and there is simply no reason to presume it other than to support a fabrication.

 

[KeithW]

Pictet's view is expressed... "It was more to the advantage of heretics to suppress this passage, than to that of the orthodox to add it, because, if it were genuine, the heresy of the former would be entirely overthrown; if spurious, the orthodox creed was in no danger, being clearly established from other passages of scripture."

I came across a more brief statement of this argument while I was rereading about the comma johanneum in a book I have. The following was said in the context of the controversy generated because the comma was missing from the first two printed editions of Erasmus' Greek New Testament.

'Both Edward Lee and Diego Lopez Zuniga attacked him [Erasmus] for not including this passage and hence encouraging "Arianism"...'​

Let's think through the argument of Pictet, Lee, and Zuniga. For the orthodox, the doctrine of the Trinity does not stand or fall on one verse. Why? For someone who is orthodox in their doctrine their belief in the Trinity is based on a careful examination of all of Scripture. However, the same argument claims that one verse will prevent the heretic from becoming a heretic. This sounds like a double standard. Let us examine real world evidence of this second claim.

• The Christian Science church who has the comma in the KJV. It did not prevent their false view of Jesus.
• The Mormons who have the comma in the KJV. It did not prevent their false view of Jesus.
• The Oneness Pentecostals who have the comma in the KJV. It did not prevent their false view of the Trinity.

So the argument about stopping heretical views does not hold up to real world examination. I believe the argument misses the root cause of heresy.

Personal experience: I spent a few years in the Christian Science church as a child, which has the KJV. The comma did not prevent from believing that Jesus was not deity. At the age of 18 I first believed in the Gospel in a Oneness Pentecostal church. I read the KJV all the way through, and the New Testament many times. The comma did not convert me away from believing Jesus was not deity. It was only many years later while reading a different verse in a different book of the New Testament that my eyes were finally opened to the truth that Jesus is deity.

 

[Dachaser]

I came across a more brief statement of this argument while I was rereading about the comma johanneum in a book I have. The following was said in the context of the controversy generated because the comma was missing from the first two printed editions of Erasmus' Greek New Testament.

'Both Edward Lee and Diego Lopez Zuniga attacked him [Erasmus] for not including this passage and hence encouraging "Arianism"...'​

Let's think through the argument of Pictet, Lee, and Zuniga. For the orthodox, the doctrine of the Trinity does not stand or fall on one verse. Why? For someone who is orthodox in their doctrine their belief in the Trinity is based on a careful examination of all of Scripture. However, the same argument claims that one verse will prevent the heretic from becoming a heretic. This sounds like a double standard. Let us examine real world evidence of this second claim.

• The Christian Science church who has the comma in the KJV. It did not prevent their false view of Jesus.
• The Mormons who have the comma in the KJV. It did not prevent their false view of Jesus.
• The Oneness Pentecostals who have the comma in the KJV. It did not prevent their false view of the Trinity.

So the argument about stopping heretical views does not hold up to real world examination. I believe the argument misses the root cause of heresy.

Personal experience: I spent a few years in the Christian Science church as a child, which has the KJV. The comma did not prevent from believing that Jesus was not deity. At the age of 18 I first believed in the Gospel in a Oneness Pentecostal church. I read the KJV all the way through, and the New Testament many times. The comma did not convert me away from believing Jesus was not deity. It was only many years later while reading a different verse in a different book of the New Testament that my eyes were finally opened to the truth that Jesus is deity.

Think that none of the modern versions that do not agree with those three witnesses as being valid would be saying that Jesus is not deity!

 

[MW]

However, the same argument claims that one verse will prevent the heretic from becoming a heretic.

Pictet did not make this claim. I do not recall coming across this claim among any of the reformed orthodox.

 

[KeithW]

Pictet did not make this claim. I do not recall coming across this claim among any of the reformed orthodox.

Thank you for the clarification.