1 John 5:7-8 KJV Teaching the Traditions of Men.

image

I do not usually post articles written by another author, but this issue is too important to ignore or dismiss offhandedly. Over forty years ago as a young teenager in a Trinitarian church I was strongly encouraged to be orthodox and accept the Trinity as the ONLY way to express the mystery of the Godhead. Well after reading through the entire New Testament I found the clear expression of the Trinity that I felt had been so lacking in all other scriptures, but I was very disappointed when I was told that part of the verse was an obvious insertion in the text.

You can only imagine the great disappointment and confusion I felt at the tender age of 13. After all if someone felt so strongly about their orthodox belief in the Trinity that they felt justified in adding to the Word of God how could I believe anything that was written. Instead of giving up my faith in Jesus and God our Father I decided to study to show myself approved. I bought a Strong’s exhaustive concordance, Thayer’s Greek lexicon and a Bible dictionary. Yes I saved my allowance, bottle deposit money and did without other things boys would spend their money on to be able to study. I have been called a heretic by so-called orthodox believers who believe what their church teaches and their thinking revolves around in circles. Some people say, “I believe what my church teaches.” I ask, “What does your church teach?” “They teach what I believe.”

In regarding the theology of the Trinity, which is much more involved than belief in the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit and has gone through some refinement over the last 1,700 years of church history, I’m not opposed to it. I’m opposed to the use of it as a litmus test of salvation. For it is Peter’s profession of faith in The Lord that is the litmus test of salvation.

Matthew 16:15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

So for all of you KJV only folks who think that the great age of the King James Version makes it the most accurate translation, I invite you to read this article with an open mind and pray upon it. I think the saddest part is not that Roman Catholic Trinitarian zealots put these added words in the Holy Scriptures, but that it continues to be included in the KJV and other Bibles that rely on the Textus Receptus as their sole Greek manuscript for translation.

This brief article was written by Daniel B. Wallace PhD.

Daniel B. Wallace has taught Greek and New Testament courses on a graduate school level since 1979. He has a Ph.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary, and is currently professor of New Testament Studies at his alma mater. His Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament .

“5:7 For there are three that testify, 5:8 the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are in agreement.” ‑‑NET Bible

Before τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, the Textus Receptus reads ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. 5·8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ (“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth”). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence—both external and internal—is decidedly against its authenticity. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence.1

This longer reading is found only in eight late manuscripts, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these manuscripts (2318, 221, and [with minor variations] 61, 88, 429, 629, 636, and 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest manuscript, codex 221 (10th century), includes the reading in a marginal note which was added sometime after the original composition. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek manuscript until the 1500s; each such reading was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the reading appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either manuscript, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until AD 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant, since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity.2 The reading seems to have arisen in a fourth century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church.

The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared (1516), there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek manuscripts that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written by one Roy or Froy at Oxford in c. 1520),3 Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this manuscript sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text,4 as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever manuscripts he could for the production of his Greek New Testament. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: he did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold.

Modern advocates of the Textus Receptus and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings—even in places where the TR/Byzantine manuscripts lack them. Further, these KJV advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. But this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text. Further, it puts these Protestant proponents in the awkward and self-contradictory position of having to affirm that the Roman Catholic humanist, Erasmus, was just as inspired as the apostles, for on several occasions he invented readings—due either to carelessness or lack of Greek manuscripts (in particular, for the last six verses of Revelation Erasmus had to back-translate from Latin to Greek).

In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum must go back to the original text when it did not appear until the 16th century in any Greek manuscripts? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: faith must be rooted in history. To argue that the Comma must be authentic is Bultmannian in its method, for it ignores history at every level. As such, it has very little to do with biblical Christianity, for a biblical faith is one that is rooted in history.

Significantly, the German translation done by Luther was based on Erasmus’ second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza’s 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus’ third and later editions (and Stephanus’ editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others.

Unfortunately, for many, the Comma and other similar passages have become such emotional baggage that is dragged around whenever the Bible is read that a knee-jerk reaction and ad hominem argumentation becomes the first and only way that they can process this issue. Sadly, neither empirical evidence nor reason can dissuade them from their views. The irony is that their very clinging to tradition at all costs (namely, of an outmoded translation which, though a literary monument in its day, is now like a Model T on the Autobahn) emulates Roman Catholicism in its regard for tradition.5 If the King James translators knew that this would be the result nearly four hundred years after the completion of their work, they’d be writhing in their graves.

11For a detailed discussion, see Metzger, Textual Commentary, 2nd ed., 647-49.

2Not only the ancient orthodox writers, but also modern orthodox scholars would of course be delighted if this reading were the original one. But the fact is that the evidence simply does not support the Trinitarian formula here—and these orthodox scholars just happen to hold to the reasonable position that it is essential to affirm what the Bible affirms where it affirms it, rather than create such affirmations ex nihilo. That KJV advocates have charged modern translations with heresy because they lack the Comma is a house of cards, for the same translators who have worked on the NIV, NASB, or NET (as well as many other translations) have written several articles and books affirming the Trinity.

3This manuscript which contains the entire New Testament is now housed in Dublin. It has been examined so often at this one place that the book now reportedly falls open naturally to 1 John 5.

4That Erasmus made such a protest or that he had explicitly promised to include the Comma is an overstatement of the evidence, though the converse of this can be said to be true: Erasmus refused to put this in his without Greek manuscript support.

5 Thus, TR-KJV advocates subconsciously embrace two diametrically opposed traditions: when it comes to the first 1500 years of church history, they hold to a Bultmannian kind of Christianity (viz., the basis for their belief in the superiority of the Byzantine manuscripts—and in particular, the half dozen that stand behind the TR—has very little empirical substance of historical worth). Once such readings became a part of tradition, however, by way of the TR, the argument shifts to one of tradition rather than non-empirical fideism. Neither basis, of course, resembles Protestantism.

Advertisements

About didaskologos

Hi, my name is Norm Robinson and I'm a grateful believer. I have been on a quest to discover authentic Christianity and essential theology for over forty years and I invite all who are called by His name to join me. You see, we are not like the many hucksters who preach for personal profit. We preach the word of God with sincerity and with Christ's authority, knowing that God is watching us. 2 Corinthians 2:17 NLT.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to 1 John 5:7-8 KJV Teaching the Traditions of Men.

  1. It’s been awhile, how might one say, “Question anything,” in Koine and/or Latin?

    Like

  2. Carol says:

    After reading through this article and your statements, how does one who is not a Bible scholar deal with this issue? I was not taught to question, only to believe. I sat week after week like a little bird with my mouth open waiting to be fed. To God’s credit my heart was pricked by matters concerning racial inequality- one of the few “feedings” I rejected, even being raised in the South. But I digress from your point….
    In response to your young believer struggle, “After all if someone felt so strongly about their orthodox belief in the Trinity that they felt justified in adding to the Word of God how could I believe anything that was written.” I pose the question- if God had not wanted it in the Holy Bible to be read as the “inspired Word of God”, would He in His divine power have let it be included? Even in man’s weakness to pressures to include or not include wording in transcribing Scripture through the years and numerous translations, I still believe He is Sovereign. I thank God that the enemy was not successful in the attempt to get you to “giving up my faith in Jesus and God our Father I decided to study to show myself approved.” I have heard Pastor David say to take all of scripture into account when seeking understanding, not just a single verse. And to look for it being repeated, especially in the New Testament, to be viewed as the New Covenant. And it appears that your personal study led you to just that conclusion. God has given you such a brilliant mind for searching out the Truth. Some times I want to say, what is the bottom line, that is all that matters, but I depend on others to explain it to me, rather than the Holy Spirit through reading and studying the Word of God, the Holy Bible, myself. You have once again inspired me to study and pray and ask the Holy Spirit to reveal Truth and reject the lies of the enemy that would confuse or mislead me, to listen to that still, small voice say; this is the way, walk in it.
    After rereading your part of the blog, I discovered the heart of what you take issue with: “I’m opposed to the use of it as a litmus test of salvation. For it is Peter’s profession of faith in The Lord that is the litmus test of salvation.” And I would add the thief on the cross as well! Maybe we should we all learn Latin and Greek and even Hebrew to accurately understand the Holy Bible? But isn’t that one reason why God gave us the Holy Spirit? And He speaks a language I can understand thank goodness!
    I read recently one of the differences in Catholicism and Protestantism concerning salvation: for the Catholics it is based on belief AND tradition, but salvation is based on belief ALONE by Protestants. When one first comes to a saving knowledge of Christ, it is based on the belief that Christ died as a substitute for our sin. As a new believer one cannot be expected to understand all that the Bible teaches on the Trinity immediately. We learn that sanctification is a process. That being said, one aspect I find lacking in being a Protestant is the teaching and understanding of the power of the Holy Spirit in the believers life. What I was taught tends to take me back to works and striving rather than living in the power of HIs grace. At the ripe old age of 58, I now know God has work He has for me to do, by faith and by/with/in HIs grace, for His glory. This may be just my personal experience, but I think many can identify. Only a grateful heart, filled with God’s love is able to reflect that love to others- not in my old nature without being filled with the Holy Spirt and having experienced His free gift of salvation- His sacrificial love, grace, and mercy. It’s not about what I do, but what He did on the cross! I love you my brother in Christ. Onward!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s