Should 1 John 5:7 Remain Deleted?

by sacolton 10 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  sacolton

  1 John 5:7 says:

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

  A Trail of Evidence

  But during this same time, we find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s. Here is a useful timeline of references to this verse:

  200 AD	Tertullian quoted the verse in his Apology, Against Praxeas
  250 AD	Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)
  350 AD	Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]
  350 AD	Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]
  350 AD	Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione
  398 AD	Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism
  415 AD	Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)
  450-530 AD	Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are: A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven" B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.] C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]
  500 AD	Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]
  550 AD	Old Latin ms r has it
  550 AD	The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]
  750 AD	Wianburgensis referred to it
  800 AD	Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]
  1000s AD	miniscule 635 has it
  1150 AD	minuscule ms 88 in the margin
  1300s AD	miniscule 629 has it
  157-1400 AD	Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse
  1500 AD	ms 61 has the verse
  	Even Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r.

  Removed from NIV and NWT bibles. Easy to see why, but should this scripture remain deleted?
• 

  Narkissos

  This presentation is rather misleading, especially the early part (about Tertullian etc.), because using a similar statement (which is not extraordinary in the context of pre-Trinitarian theology) is not the same as quoting the verse (which implies using it as a formal quotation of the First epistle of John). The connection of this saying with the actual context of 1 John 5 doesn't occur before the late 4th century (see Metzger's Textual Commentary ad loc.) and long remains limited to the margins of the Western Latin church.

  There is no doubt whatsoever that this interpolation doesn't belong to the original Greek text of 1 John. Now whether this text "should" be in the Bible or not depends on what you expect "the Bible" to be. If you want to read "the Reformers' Bible" in an "integrist Protestant" way (as the KJV-only sectators) it "should" definitely be included. If you're interested in what the author of 1 John had to say it's definitely better to forget about it.
• 

  lesterd

  Why should it?? understanding the scripture, not interupting, is what make sense. The following verse gives the right context as to what it means, the three bear witness to the three therefore argee, "one", in unison.
• 

  BFD

  Saco, that's the exact scripture that through me for a tailspin. Just when I thought I was understanding scripture I found out parts had been inserted and deleted from the bible and I lost faith that the bible we have today is still The Word.

  When I opened my eyes I found that Jesus is just another face in the crowd. It's painful when your mind is one place and your heart is another. I guess we all just have to work it out.

  BFD
• 

  MOG

  It could stay the way it is...It still does not say 3 in 1 GOD..If I am correct the way it should read at the end is the 3 are in ACCORD.
• 

  Leolaia

  It's not a matter of deleting it at all. It is wholly absent in all Greek MSS dating before the twelfth century, and then only in a very small subset of them (8 of them, if I am not mistaken), and then only in the margins for most of them. It has no better claim of being in a modern translation than any of the other myriad late corruptions that are absent in all early MSS and found only in a few late MSS. Indeed, it is not only missing in the Greek, but also in all Greek fathers, and in all versions except the Latin (e.g. Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Arabic, Slavonic, etc.), and then it is found only in the Vulgate after AD 800, such that it did not exist in the Vulgate of Jerome (c. AD 404). It was rather backtranslated from the Latin into Greek. Add to the fact that it interrupts the thought of the passage, I can't think of any clearer evidence that a text is an interpolation.

  It should also be pointed out that neither Tertullian (in De Baptismo 6.2, Adversus Praxean 25.1) nor Cyprian (in De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate, 6) QUOTE the disputed text. They both quote the text of 1 John 5:17 that is found everywhere and interpret it as referring to the same thing as John 10:30, which they also quote in the same context. It is through this reference to John 10:30 that 1 John 5:17 is interpreted to have reference to the Father and Son (and the Holy Spirit to fill out the three). In other words, what Tertullian and Cyprian provide is the underlying biblical exegesis that gave rise to the Comma Johanneum in the first place.

  Some of the dates in the list (courtesty of Jack Chick, not exactly a biblical luminary) are also questionable. According to Metzger, MS. 635 was indeed an 11th century MS, but the Comma Johanneum was written in the margin by a 17th (!) century hand. The same is the case with MS 88. Only four Greek MSS (dating between the 14th-16th centuries) actually have it in the text itself.
• 

  tsar_robles

  Interesting...
• 

  Witness 007

  Your first ever qoute Tertullian was the father of modern Trinity doctrine he coined the expression "trinity" and definately this verse should be left out if it wasn't 100%......the Trinitarians will be kicking themselves.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  It is a late addition. Deleted it should remain.
• 

  Junction-Guy

  Interesting, but in my 1981 NWT, they did not delete this scripture, they simply changed the words. They replaced Father,Son, and Holy Ghost with water,spirit, and blood.
  
  Was this scripture completely deleted from the 1984 NWT?