Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | 1 John 5:7 For there are three that testify: |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | 1 John 5:7 For there are three witnesses: |
Bible Question: Why do the later manuscripts get accepted over earlier ones that leave out the Trinity |
Bible Answer: Here is even more evidence against the authenticity of "The Comma Johanneum" in 1 John 5:7... Here is an excerpt from "The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?" by James R. White (1995, Bethany House Publishers)... "ERASMUS AND THE COMMA JOHANNEUM" (pg. 60-62) "The story of how this passage ended up in the King James Version is very instructive. When the first edition of Erasmus' work came out in 1516 this phrase, dubbed today the "Johannine comma," or in Latin, the Comma Johanneum, was not in the text for a very simple reason: it was not found in any Greek manuscript of 1 John that Erasmus had examined. Instead, the phrase was found only in the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus rightly did not include it in the first or second editions. The note in the Annotations simply said, "In the Greek codex I find only this about the threefold testimony: 'because there are three witnesses, spirit, water, and blood.'" His reliance upon the Greek manuscripts rather than the Latin Vulgate caused quite a stir. Both Edward Lee and Diego Lopez Zuniga attacked Erasmus for not including this passage and hence encouraging "Arianism," the very same charge made by KJV Only advocates today. Erasmus protested that he was simply following the Greek texts. In responding to Lee, Erasmus challenged him to "produce a Greek manuscript that has what is missing in my edition." Likewise Erasmus rebutted Zuniga by pointing out that while he (Zuniga) was constantly referring Erasmus to one particular Greek manuscript, in this case he had not brought this text forward, correctly assuming that even Zuniga's manuscript agreed with Erasmus' reading. He also said, "Finally, the whole passage is so obscure that it cannot be very valuable in refuting the [Arian] heresies. Since Erasmus had promised, in his response to Lee, to include the passage should a Greek manuscript be found that contained it, he was constrained to insert the phrase in the third edition when presented with an Irish manuscript that contained the disputed phrase, Codex Montfortianus, now at Trinity College, Dublin. The manuscript is highly suspect, in that it most probably was created in the house of the Grey Friars, whose provincial, Henry Standish, was an old enemy of Erasmus, and whose intention was simply to refute Erasmus. The text note in the Annotations grew tremendously, for Erasmus inserted many of the arguments and citations he had used in replying to Lee and Zuniga. He remarked, "I have restored the text ... so as not to give anyone an occasion for slander." He concluded the note with the statement, "But to return to the business of the reading: from our remarks it is clear that the Greek and Latin manuscripts vary, and in my opinion there is no danger in accepting either reading." The Comma Johanneum is extremely important. Here we have a phrase that everyone will admit is manifestly orthodox. What it says is obviously true. Yet, we are in no way dependent upon the phrase for our knowledge of the Trinity or the unity of the three Persons: Father, Son, and Spirit. The doctrine of the Trinity does not stand or fall upon the inclusion of the Comma. Beyond this, however, we have a phrase that is simply not a part of the ancient Greek manuscripts of John's first epistle. The few manuscripts that contain the phrase are very recent, and half of these have the reading written in the margin. The phrase appears only in certain of the Latin versions. There are, quite literally, hundreds of readings in the New Testament manuscript tradition that have better arguments in their favor that are rejected by both Erasmus and the KJV translators. And yet this passage is ferociously defended by KJV Only advocates to this day. We can see that Erasmus could have just as easily maintained his position against the Comma, resulting in a KJV without this inserted phrase. But aside from these considerations, we need to note what is really being said by the defenders of the AV. If indeed the Comma was a part of the original writing of the apostle John, we are forced to conclude that entire passages, rich in theological meaning, can disappear from the Greek manuscript tradition without leaving a single trace. In reality, the KJV Only advocate is arguing for a radical viewpoint on the New Testament text, a viewpoint that utterly denies the very tenacity that we discussed in chapter 3. Even "liberal" scholars will admit the outstanding purity of the NT text and the validity of the belief in the tenacity of that text. Here we find otherwise very conservative people, the defenders of the KJV, joining arms with the most destructive liberal critics in presenting a theory regarding the NT text that, in reality, destroys the very basis upon which we can have confidence that we still have the original words of Paul or John. And their adopted position does this very thing." - Makarios |
Up | Down View Branch | ID# 35099 | ||
Questions and/or Subjects for 1 John 5:7 | Author | ||
|
melchizedekau | ||
|
kalos | ||
|
frontline | ||
|
Makarios | ||
|
Isaac Jesus | ||
|
justanotherchristian | ||
|
8788 | ||
|
Shirley Ujest | ||
|
happyandfree | ||
|
luky | ||
|
abearmenta |