|
Author
|
Topic: 1 John 5:7 lets debate the only explicit trinity verse in the Bible
|
timspong
Advanced Member
Member # 5240
|
posted
The following are all implicit references to the trinity
Matthew 28:19,
I Corinthians 12:4-6,
II Corinthians 13:14,
Jude 1:20-21
However, 1 john 5 7 is the only explicit reference
We are not just talking about the punctuation but the fact that most of the verse is missing from the Greek texts.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Timothy Michael Spong
Posts: 146 | From: Lagos, Nigeria | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged | 
|
|
epouraniois
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
the formula of the Comma...
is irrelavent, as the manuscripts contain no punctuation of any kind, and no spaces between the words,
but another trinity verse is found in Mathew 28.
IP: Logged |
|
|
timspong
Advanced Member
Member # 5240
|
posted
Having already briefly commented on just a few of the problems with the "Westcott and Hort Methodology", I should now take this opportunity to present the alternative to their errant theories, and then apply this alternative to the Johannine Comma. ("Commata" were the original commas, indicating the end of a phrase. According to James A. Kleist, in "Colometry and the New Testament", Classical Bulletin, iv, 1928, pp. 26, there was no mark like our present comma, but a group of words isolated as a single group was a "comma". Groups of these would be "commata". Hence the classification of the group of words in 1 John 5:7 as a "comma".)
At the same time that WH were doing their research, there was another man doing his own research. He had at his disposal all of the resources available to WH. He devoted the last 30 years of his life to an examination of the false statements being made by the reigning Critics of his day.
He personally examined the Vatican ms B, he travelled to Mt. Sinai to personally examine the mss there, and he made several tours of European libraries, examining and actually collating NT mss as he went. At the same time he was compiling his massive Index of NT Quotations in the Church Fathers which is now deposited in the British Museum. He received B.A., M.A., and B.D., degrees from Oxford University, was appointed professor of divinity at Oxford in 1867, and was appointed Dean of Chichester in 1876. Through all of his works runs his fundamental thought: that the textual criticism of the NT must be according to the analogy of faith, and because of this it must be different from the textual criticism of any other book. As a result of this lifetime of labor and research and travel, John William Burgon set forth what he called the
"Seven Tests of Truth for NT Criticism".
1) Antiquity, or Primitiveness
2) Consent of Witnesses, or Number
3) Variety of Evidence, or Catholicity
4) Respectability of Witnesses, or Weight
5) Continuity, or Unbroken Tradition
6) Evidence of the Entire Passage, or Context
7) Internal Considerations, or Reasonableness
In summary, he says about these Seven Notes, "...although no doubt it is conceivable that any one of the seven might possibly in itself suffice to establish almost any reading practically this is never the case. And why? Because we never meet with any one of these Tests in the fullest possible measure. No Test ever attains to perfection, or indeed can attain. An approximation to the Test is all that can be expected, or even desired. And sometimes we are obliged to put up with a very slight approximation indeed. Their strength resides in their cooperation." The very fact of competing variants means that some of the notes, at least, cannot be satisfied in full measure.
I shall apply these Seven Notes to the Johannine Comma, and by them it will be seen that there is a case for the inclusion of this important verse in the text of our Scriptures. As Burgon states further, "Undeniable as it is, (a) that ancient documents do not admit of being placed in scales and weighed; and (b) That if they did, the man does not exist who is capable of conducting the operation." For this reason, I will apply the Tests to 1 John 5:7 on a "pass or fail" basis.
Again by way of clarification, let me say that I am not defending its inclusion in the TR, but in the KJV. Whethor or not you can divorce the two in your own mind is unimportant - they remain separate, though related. No writer that I know of has claimed infallibility for the TR, although a great many have claimed the same for the KJV.
The Test of Antiquity
Any reading, in order to be a serious candidate for the original, should be old. A word of caution in this respect is quite in order, however. On the surface, the "oldest is best" philosophy has sound reasoning as its basis. The problem is that there is much more to judging the age of the reading than simply ascertaining the actual age of the ms. Or, in other words, the oldest reading does not necessarily reside in the oldest mss. The most significant variants in the mass of textual sources came into being before 200 AD. As one competent judge stated, "It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the worst corruptions to which the NT has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed." As a rule, at least fifty years must be assumed to have transpired between the penning of the inspired originals and the earliest written representation of them now extant. It was precisely in that first age that men would have been least careful or accurate in guarding the source, since most of them probably had no idea that the documents in their hands would prove to be additions to God's written revelation. Thus, while in this age they would have been least critically exact in their quoting of the sources, at the same time the enemy of truth would have been most restless and most assiduous in procuring its depravation. Therefore it comes as no surprise that the earliest shreds and scraps of quotations of the NT scriptures are not only disappointing by reason of their inexactness, their fragmentary character, and their vagueness, but they are often demonstrably inaccurate.
The point in all of this is that it is not the oldest DOCUMENT for which we search, but the oldest READING. That they are often not one and the same must be recognized in order to prevent that mistake from being made. So, in presenting the case for antiquity with regard to 1 John 5:7, my point is that not only can the age of the reading be demonstrated by a single early witness, but also by the agreement of a number of later independent witnesses, since their common source would have to be a good deal earlier.
Now, to specifics, the evidence for the early existence of the Johannine Comma is found in the following sources (some abbreviations are made when quoting the source - if there are questions, I can give the specifics):
1) 200 - Tertullian quotes the verse (Gill, "An exposition of the NT", Vol 2, pp. 907-8)
2) 250 - Cyprian, who writes, "And again concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: 'and the Three are One'" (Vienna, vol. iii, p. 215)
3) 350 - Priscillian cites the verse (Vienna, vol. xviii, p. 6)
4) 350 - Idacius Clarus cites the verse (MPL, vol. 62, col. 359)
5) 350 - Athanasius cites the verse (Gill)
6) 415 - Council of Carthage appeals to the verse as a basic text proving a fundamental doctrine when contending with the Arians (Ruckman, "History of the NT Church", Vol. I, p. 146)
7) 450-530 - several orthodox African writers quote the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
A) Vigilius Tapensis (MPL, vol. 62, col. 243)
B) Victor Vitensis (Vienna, vol. vii, p. 60)
C) Fulgentius (MPL, vol. 65, col. 500)
8) 500 - Cassiodorus cites the verse (MPL, vol. 70, col. 1373)
9) 550 - Old Latin ms r has the verse
10) 550 - The "Speculum" contains the verse
11) 750 - Wianburgensis cites the verse
12) 800 - Jerome's Vulgate includes the verse
13) 1150 - minuscule ms 88 in the margin
14) 1200-1400 - Waldensian Bibles have the verse
15) 1500 - ms 61 has the verse
16) various witnesses cited in Nestle's 26th edition for a replacement of the text as it stands with the Comma: 221 v.l.;2318 vg[cl]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r; and other important Latin mss.
From this it is seen that the case for antiquity extends at the earliest to Tertullian in 200 AD. The importance of Patristic evidence in the consideration of the antiquity of a given passage is significant. As Dean Burgon points out, these men often comment upon, freely quote, and habitually refer to the words of inspiration, especially when defending doctrine from attack. By this it comes to pass that a host of unsuspected witnesses to the truth of scripture becomes producible. They thus testify in ordinary quotations to the existence of the readings in the ms copies they used. Indeed, very often the mss in their hands, which live in their quotations, are older, perhaps centuries older, than any copies that now survive. The antiquity being therefore established, it is seen that the text passes the first test. But antiquity alone does not suffice...
The Test of the Consent of Witnesses
By this is meant the simple counting of the available witnesses. In this case, of course, the witnesses are in the minority against the remaining mass of mss and various other sources. However, this does not prove the case one way or the other. Were there only one or two or three witnesses for the text, then I should say that it would fail. Since there are at least 25 witnesses, it cannot be ruled to have failed this test, although it remains by far in the minority.
The Test of the Variety of Evidence
By variety is meant, in the first place, geographical locations, but also the different kinds of witness; i.e, mss, Fathers, Versions, lectionaries, etc. Burgon states the obvious, saying "Speaking generally, the consentient testimony of two, four, six, or more witnesses, coming to us from widely sundered regions is weightier by far than the same number of witnesses proceeding from the same locality, between whom there probably exists some sort of sympathy, and possibly some degree of collusion." By examining the variety, we are able to render a better judgement as to the independence of the witnesses. Since the above stated witnesses vary geographically from North Africa to Italy to Asia, and vary in source from Fathers to versions to mss, the text passes this test also.
The Test of Continuity
By this is meant to what degree the attestation to a given reading occurs throughout the ages of its transmission. If the history of the transmission of the text was at all normal, we would expect that the original wording would leave traces of its existence and of its use all down the ages. Where there is variety, there is almost always continuity, but the two are not identical. By examining the given list of witnesses, it is seen that the continuity is most pronounced, in that the reading appears consistently throughout history from 200 AD to 1500 AD, before Erasmus compiled the TR. Again, the text passes.
The Test of the Respectability of Witnesses
Whereas the previous four Notes have centered on the reading, this one centers on the witness itself. By it, the credibility of a witness is judged by its own performance. Burgon gives a further description, "Respectability is of course a relative term, but its use and applicability to this department of science will be generally understood and admitted by scholars, although they may not be altogether agreed as to their authorities." Among the witnesses listed, Tertullian, Cyprian, Athanasius, the orthodox African writers, and the Waldensian Bibles would stand out as respectable to most objective critics, and some of the Latin as well. On that basis, the text again passes.
The Test of the Evidence of the Entire Passage
This test does not concern itself with what is usually understood by the term "context", but is concerned rather by the behavior of a certain witness in the immediate vicinity of the problem being considered. It is a specific and limited application of the previous Test of Respectability. Burgon says, "As regards the precise form of language employed, it will be found also a salutary safeguard against error in every instance, to inspect with severe critical exactness the entire context of the passage in dispute. If in certain Codexes that context shall prove to be confessedly in a very corrupt state, then it becomes self-evident that those Codexes can only be admitted as witnesses with considerable suspicion and reserve." Under this test then, it is not the general character of the witness that is under examination, but the particular passage in dispute. In that regard, all of the above stated witnesses in ms form exhibit unsullied integrity in these first few verses of 1 John 5.
The Test of Internal Considerations
This note has nothing to do with the "internal evidence" about which WH have been so eloquent. There is nothing so subjective as transcriptional probability and intrinsic probability meant here, but instead has to do with grammatical, geographical, and logical considerations. Or, in other words, the FACTS of the passage. In this particular case, if we omit the Comma, we are faced with tremendous grammatical difficulties. If we leave the verse as it stands in most Greek texts, we are given "witnesses" (hoy marturountes) in verse 7 which are masculine, with three neuter nouns in verse 8 (to pneuma kai to hudor kai to aima), which are then said to agree as one. In other words, by the rule of Greek syntax known as the "power of attraction" which says that the masculines among a group control the gender of a neuter connected with that group, we are given three masculine witnesses which are supposed to agree as one neuter witness. This is a grammatical impossibility. The genders don't match. On the other hand, if you accept the Comma as a part of the text, you would have two masculine subjects (the Father and the Word, "ho patare, ho logos") to agree with the masculine witnesses. (I hated this stuff when I was taking Greek - I can't believe I'm having to deal with it again!) It is therefore seen that on the basis of internal considerations the inclusion of the text is a must in order to avoid violating basic Greek grammar.
As one last consideration which has nothing to do with any of the Tests of Truth, but would actually delve into the intrinsic probability desired by WH in their theories, the formula of the Comma does not lend itself to the idea that it is a trinitarian interpolation which arose from a private interpretation of verse 8. It seems obvious that the phrase "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost," is not at all compatible with the standard trinitarian formula "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." Why does it exhibit the singular combination not seen anywhere else in scripture by the use of "Word" instead of "Son"? It is always said that the person who made this up was attempting to buttress the doctrine of the Trinity, yet with this as his main concern it is quite unlikely that he would abandon the time-honored formula and invent an entirely new one.
The fact is that the use of "Word" is consistent with the apostle John's style. In the second place, the omission of the Comma seems to leave the passage incomplete for more reasons than just the grammatical. It is a common scriptural usage to present solemn truths or warnings in groups of three or four. See Pr 30, Amos 1:3,6,9,13 etc; the visions of the butler and baker in Ge 40; the combination of the words of Christ in Mt 12:40. It is in accord with Biblical usage, therefore, to expect that in 1 John 5, the formula "there are three that bear witness" will be repeated at least twice.
From the Tests of Truth, and these last observations, it is quite apparent that there is indeed a case for the inclusion of the text in our Bibles. As to how strong a case, I leave to the reader's individual judgement. I do not say that it is all conclusive, but on the other hand by no means can it be said to be conclusive that the text should NOT be included. In the case of the accusation against the KJV, the burden of proof lies with the accuser, whose responsibility it is to prove his case that the inclusion of the verse is a textual error. No such case has been proven. The evidence I have given at the very least is enough to throw the shadow of doubt on the accusation itself, which therefore precludes its ability to be proven. On the basis of the external evidences alone, it is at least possible that the Johannine Comma is a reading that somehow dropped out of the Greek NT text, but was preserved in the Latin text through the usage of the Latin speaking church, and this possibility grows more and more toward probability when the internal evidences are considered.
P.S. Sorry about the long posts but I think this issue is important.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Timothy Michael Spong
Posts: 146 | From: Lagos, Nigeria | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
timspong
Advanced Member
Member # 5240
|
posted
1 John 5:7 (Johannine Comma)
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
The passage is called the Johannine Comma and is not found in the majority of Greek manuscripts. [1] However, the verse is a wonderful testimony to the Heavenly Trinity and should be maintained in our English versions, not only because of its doctrinal significance but because of the external and internal evidence that testify to its authenticity.
The External Support: Although not found in most Greek manuscripts, the Johannine Comma is found in several. It is contained in 629 (fourteenth century), 61 (sixteenth century), 918 (sixteenth century), 2473 (seventeenth century), and 2318 (eighteenth century). It is also in the margins of 221 (tenth century), 635 (eleventh century), 88 (twelveth century), 429 (fourteenth century), and 636 (fifteenth century). There are about five hundred existing manuscripts of 1 John chapter five that do not contain the Comma. [2] It is clear that the reading found in the Textus Receptus is the minority reading with later textual support from the Greek witnesses. Nevertheless, being a minority reading does not eliminate it as genuine. The Critical Text considers the reading Iesou (of Jesus) to be the genuine reading instead of Iesou Christou (of Jesus Christ) in 1 John 1:7. Yet Iesou is the minority reading with only twenty-four manuscripts supporting it, while four hundred seventy-seven manuscripts support the reading Iesou Christou found in the Textus Receptus. Likewise, in 1 John 2:20 the minority reading pantes (all) has only twelve manuscripts supporting it, while the majority reading is panta (all things) has four hundred ninety-one manuscripts. Still, the Critical Text favors the minority reading over the majority in that passage. This is common place throughout the First Epistle of John, and the New Testament as a whole. Therefore, simply because a reading is in the minority does not eliminate it as being considered original.
While the Greek textual evidence is weak, the Latin textual evidence for the Comma is extremely strong. It is in the vast majority of the Old Latin manuscripts, which outnumber the Greek manuscripts. Although some doubt if the Comma was a part of Jerome's original Vulgate, the evidence suggests that it was. Jerome states:
In that place particularly where we read about the unity of the Trinity which is placed in the First Epistle of John, in which also the names of three, i.e. of water, of blood, and of spirit, do they place in their edition and omitting the testimony of the Father; and the Word, and the Spirit in which the catholic faith is especially confirmed and the single substance of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is confirmed. [3]
Other church fathers are also known to have quoted the Comma. Although some have questioned if Cyprian (258 AD) knew of the Comma, his citation certainly suggests that he did. He writes: "The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one' and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one'." [4] Also, there is no doubt that Priscillian (385 AD) cites the Comma:
As John says "and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh, the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus." [5]
Likewise, the anti-Arian work compiled by an unknown writer, the Varimadum (380 AD) states: "And John the Evangelist says, . . . 'And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one'." [6] Additionally, Cassian (435 AD), Cassiodorus (580 AD), and a host of other African and Western bishops in subsequent centuries have cited the Comma. [7] Therefore, we see that the reading has massive and ancient textual support apart from the Greek witnesses.
Internal Evidence: The structure of the Comma is certainly Johannine in style. John is noted for referring to Christ as "the Word." If 1 John 5:7 were an interpretation of verse eight, as some have suggested, than we would expect the verse to use "Son" instead of "Word." However, the verse uses the Greek word logos, which is uniquely in the style of John and provides evidence of its genuineness. Also, we find John drawing parallels between the Trinity and what they testify (1 John 4:13-14). Therefore, it comes as no surprise to find a parallel of witnesses containing groups of three, one heavenly and one earthly.
The strongest evidence, however, is found in the Greek text itself. Looking at 1 John 5:8, there are three nouns which, in Greek, stand in the neuter (Spirit, water, and blood). However, they are followed by a participle that is masculine. The Greek phrase here is oi marturountes (who bare witness). Those who know the Greek language understand this to be poor grammar if left to stand on its own. Even more noticeably, verse six has the same participle but stands in the neuter (Gk.: to marturoun). Why are three neuter nouns supported with a masculine participle? The answer is found if we include verse seven. There we have two masculine nouns (Father and Son) followed by a neuter noun (Spirit). The verse also has the Greek masculine participle oi marturountes. With this clause introducing verse eight, it is very proper for the participle in verse eight to be masculine, because of the masculine nouns in verse seven. But if verse seven were not there it would become improper Greek grammar.
Even though Gregory of Nazianzus (390 AD) does not testify to the authenticity of the Comma, he makes mention of the flawed grammar resulting from its absence. In his Theological Orientations he writes referring to John:
. . . (he has not been consistent) in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourselves disclaim in the case of Deity? [8]
It is clear that Gregory recognized the inconsistency with Greek grammar if all we have are verses six and eight without verse seven. Other scholars have recognized the same thing. This was the argument of Robert Dabney of Union Theological Seminary in his book, The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek (1891). Bishop Middleton in his book, Doctrine of the Greek Article, argues that verse seven must be a part of the text according to the Greek structure of the passage. Even in the famous commentary by Matthew Henry, there is a note stating that we must have verse seven if we are to have proper Greek in verse eight. [9]
While the external evidence makes the originality of the Comma possible, the internal evidence makes it very probable. When we consider the providential hand of God and His use of the Traditional Text in the Reformation it is clear that the Comma is authentic.
[1] The first and second editions of Erasmus' Greek text did not contain the Comma. It is generally reported that Erasmus promised to include the Comma in his third edition if a single manuscript containing the Comma could be produced. A Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy) forged a Greek text containing it by translating the Comma from the Latin into Greek. Erasmus was then presented with this falsified manuscript and, being faithful to his word, reluctantly included the Comma in the 1522 edition. However, as has now been admitted by Dr. Bruce Metzger, this story is apocryphal (The Text Of The New Testament, 291). Metzger notes that H. J. de Jonge, a respected specialist on Erasmus, has established that there is no evidence of such events occurring. Therefore, opponents of the Comma in light of the historical facts should no longer affirm this report.
[2] Kurt Aland, in connection with Annette Benduhn-Mertz and Gerd Mink, Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments: I. Die Katholischen Briefe Band 1: Das Material (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 1987), 163-166.
[3] Prologue To The Canonical Epistles. The Latin text reads, "si ab interpretibus fideliter in latinum eloquium verterentur nec ambiguitatem legentibus facerent nec trinitatis unitate in prima joannis epistola positum legimus, in qua etiam, trium tantummodo vocabula hoc est aquae, sanguinis et spiritus in ipsa sua editione ponentes et patris verbique ac aspiritus testimoninum omittentes, in quo maxime et fides catholica roboratur, et patris et filii et spirtus sancti una divinitatis substantia comprobatur."
[4] Treatises 1 5:423.
[5] Liber Apologeticus.
[6] Varimadum 90:20-21.
[7] Some other sources include the Speculum (or m of 450 AD), Victor of Vita (489 AD), Victor Vitensis (485 AD), Codex Freisingensis (of 500 AD), Fulgentius (533 AD), Isidore of Seville (636 AD), Codex Pal Legionensis (650 AD), and Jaqub of Edessa (700 AD). Interestingly, it is also found in the edition of the Apostle's Creed used by the Waldenses and Albigensians of the twelfth century.
[8] Fifth Orientation the Holy Spirit.
[9] Actually the 1 John commentary is the work of "Mr. John Reynolds of Shrewsbury," one of the ministers who completed Matthew Henry's commentary, which was left incomplete [only up to the end of Acts] at Henry's death in 1714.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Timothy Michael Spong
Posts: 146 | From: Lagos, Nigeria | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
timspong
Advanced Member
Member # 5240
|
posted
Question: Is it true that 1 John 5:7 is not in any Greek manuscript before the 1600s? If it is true, why is it in the King James Bible?
Answer: 1 John 5:7 belongs in the King James Bible and was preserved by faithful Christians. But the passage was removed from many Greek manuscripts, because of the problems it seemed to cause.
It is true that there is a small number of Scriptures that are not the same between the King James Bible and the so-called "Majority" Greek text. There are a number of reasons for this:
The so-called "Majority" text was not really based on the majority of texts, but rather a relatively small number of manuscripts. The last person to try to find the differences between the majority of Greek manuscripts, Dr. Von Soden, did not collate more than 400 of the more than 5,000 Greek texts. In other words, what is commonly called the "Majority" Greek text is not a collation of the majority of manuscripts at all.
The "Majority" Greek text is also the main Greek text used by the Eastern Orthodox religion. They had a vested interest in changing (or deleting) some texts. More on this in a moment.
1 John itself is not in a large number of extant Greek manuscripts.
So why then is 1 John 5:7 in the King James Bible, but not in many of the existing Greek manuscripts? To understand the answer, we must look at the history of what happened shortly after the Bible was written.
The Greek and Roman Institutions
During the early growth of the Christian church, ministers (whether saved or not) wrote down doctrines that they said were Christian and Biblical. Starting after the death of the apostles (about 100 AD) many people taught the lie that Jesus was not God the Son and Son of God, or that Jesus became God at His baptism, or the false doctrine that the Holy Spirit was not God or was not eternal.
The growing religion that became known as Roman Catholic, after many debates eventually agreed on the doctrine of the Trinity. So they had no reason to remove 1 John 5:7 from their Bibles, since it supported what they taught.
But the Greek Eastern Orthodox religion was combating a heresy called "Sabellianism," and would have found it easier to combat the heresy by simply removing the troubling passage from their Bibles.
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.
The Vaudois
Now the "Waldensian," or "Vaudois" Bibles stretch from about 157 to the 1400s AD. The fact is, according to John Calvin's successor Theodore Beza, that the Vaudois received the Scriptures from missionaries of Antioch of Syria in the 120s AD and finished translating it into their Latin language by 157 AD. This Bible was passed down from generation, until the Reformation of the 1500s, when the Protestants translated the Vaudois Bible into French, Italian, etc. This Bible carries heavy weight when finding out what God really said. John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards believed, as most of the Reformers, that the Vaudois were the descendants of the true Christians, and that they preserved the Christian faith for the Bible-believing Christians today.
Who Has the Most to Gain? Who Has the Most to Lose?
The evidence of history shows us that the Roman Catholic religion was relentless in its effort to destroy the Vaudois and their Bible. It took them until the 1650s to finish their hateful attacks. But the Vaudois were successful in preserving God's words to the days of the Reformation.
Now we have to ask ourselves a question: Who had the most to gain by adding to or taking away from the Bible? Did the Vaudois, who were being killed for having their Bibles, have anything to gain by adding to or taking from the words of God? Compromise is what the Roman religion wanted! Had the Vaudois just followed the popes, their lives would have been much easier. But they counted the cost. This was not politics; it was their life and soul. They above all people would not want to change a single letter of the words they received from Antioch of Syria. And they paid for this with their lives.
What about the "scholars" at Alexandria, Egypt? We already know about them. They could not even make their few 45 manuscripts agree. How could we believe they preserved God's words?
The Reformation itself owes a lot to these Christians in the French Alps. They not only preserved the Scriptures, but they show to what lengths God would go to keep his promise (Psalm 12:6-7).
And that's only part of the story about the preservation of God's words.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Timothy Michael Spong
Posts: 146 | From: Lagos, Nigeria | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
timspong
Advanced Member
Member # 5240
|
posted
There is much controversy over 1 John 5:7 as it is the only verse that explicitly ties God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit into one.
1 John 5:7
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
KJV
It is actually missing from most Greek texts and the NIV. However, it is in the KJV and I believe was part of the original scripture. The following 3 posts are articles I have read concerning this issue.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Timothy Michael Spong
Posts: 146 | From: Lagos, Nigeria | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
