1 John 5:7 mentioned by early Christian Writers?

[SLD]

OK, in another discussion forum, a fundy challenged that the KJV was the aboslute perfect word of God. I then posted a reply about 1 John 5:7, not being found in any ancient sources. The reply I got was quite interesting. According to one fundy, citing Jack Chick :eek: as a source indicates that indeed this passage was cited by ancient authorities as being in the bible and was restored later.

Here's Chick's statement: http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/1john57.asp?FROM=biblecenter



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.



Chick goes on to say that the verse was in fact in old latin manuscripts and goes on to say:



The Old Latin manuscripts say it this way: "Quoniam tres sunt, gui testimonium dant in coelo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra: Spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis: et hi tres unum sunt" (verses 7-8). This wording (which matches the King James) is similar to that of Cyprian's words in Latin about 250 AD "Dicit Dominus: 'Ego et Pater unum sumus,' et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est: 'Et tres unim sunt.' (The Lord says, "I and the Father are One," and again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One."). (See the King James Bible preservation lessons by Dr. Thomas D. Holland, Th. D., Lesson 9, Textual Considerations.) Dr. Holland is an excellent scholar that thoroughly discusses the whole issue of the King James Bible and its preservation from the apostles and prophets to the present day. His new book, Crowned With Glory: The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version goes into these issues in detail.



I confess not to being the biblical expert that so many on this board are, but I have heard that the above verse was never cited by ancient sources and that in fact it just appeared suddenly in the later middle ages in the text.

Now I'm confused. Is Jack Chick lying? Of course he's a bad cartoonist, but this seems an intriguing issue.


SLD

[Vivisector]

Away from all my books, but Metzger would seem to disagree:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html

[funinspace]

Here's some comments from a pretty solid Xian site as well (and they cite Metzger as well):
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1186
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.
Though arguing with anyone buying into a KJV only, can be pretty much like... :banghead:

[SLD]

Here's some comments from a pretty solid Xian site as well (and they cite Metzger as well):
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1186

Though arguing with anyone buying into a KJV only, can be pretty much like... :banghead:

You're right about that last comment. However, I'm curious about the statement concerning early church fathers referring to the statement. So I found the entire text of Augustine's "On the Trinity" online (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1301.htm) and searched through the entire text for the phrase "three are one". I found this phrase repeated about ten or so times in the 15 books. No where was he citing any authorship for it, but merely claiming it. I cannot believe Jack Chick would lie :eek: !!!! Who would've thought. It seems that Chick thinks that everytime an early church father is arguing that the "three are one" he is referencing the quote. After all where else would he get it from if not holy scripture itself.

I have not had a chance to check his other sources, but just a glance at his quote from Cyprian merely indicates that "it was written." By whom is unknown. I wonder if most of the other source work is similar and will check this out some more.

SLD

[andrewcriddle]

When discussing the history of this interpolation one should distinguish the Latin tradition (where it is not the original reading but first appears in the fourth century and becomes widespread from the fifth century onwards) and all other traditions, Greek Coptic Syriac etc, (where it only appears very late as part of influence direct or indirect from the Latin.)

Andrew Criddle