Skip to main content

John's comma thingymabobber in his first epistle at 5:7

How do I understand the 1 John 5:7 issue?

I think I understand the peer pressure of institutions very well and their selective discrimination in the name intellectual progress/prestige. I have not been taught 1 John 5:7 is inferior, I have been taught that it's not authentic. There is a difference, I think. I was taught the Catholic Church added the text at a later time. From what I have learned there is very little good evidence to support the authenticity of 1 John 5:7 as being original to the writing of the Epistle. If its additional text then it shouldn't be included, should it? I have no problem giving it the benefit of the doubt, but is it not bizarre that it does not show up prior to the 16th century, even in Byzantine Manuscripts (majority text type)?

Aside from the textual evidence, I think the strongest argument against its authenticity is the understanding that the doctrine of the Trinity had not yet been hashed out in John's day. The first authoritative claim to the three-in-one idea is not until Nicaea in 325 AD, but of course there were references to it prior. I find it hard that the Church had to go through all of the hooplah over the Trinity if it was right there in 1 John the whole time. Not only that, but there would be all sorts of references by the Church Fathers to the verse in defense of the Trinity if the verse was present at their time, but they don't mention it (as far as I know) in any of their defences of the Trinity. Take Augustine's "De Trinitate" for example. The canon was developed by the time of his writing, and he doesn't reference it. I find that the most convincing evidence against its authenticity.

I am as Trinitarian as they come, but I do not believe that the issue of accepting or denying 1 John 5:7's authenticity is in any way similar to the peer pressure regarding evolution or Christianity in a secular environment (though, I understand that was only an illustration). The men I know who do not accept it have high regard for Scripture, in fact they have to sign a doctrinal statement every year confirming their consent to its inspiration and authority.

However, I in no way claim to know all of the issues surrounding origin and transmission of the text; there may be evidence the community of critics is unaware of. It doesn't cause problems with the doctrine of the Trinity if it is omitted or included. In my view it doesn't take away from the integrity of the Scriptures if its authenticity is questioned. I.e. its not an "attack on the Bible" as some would say. If one is to be honest with himself should he not take the evidence at hand and making the best judgment upon it? If the textual evidence would show it to be authentic to the early texts (even a portion of it) no one would think about branding it inauthentic. So its not a matter of inferiority, its a matter of authenticity. Any way, I'm sure you've heard all of that before. Either way, it's truth because God is triune. So, I wont get my feathers ruffled over it and I realize this is not really a concern to the present conversation.

Popular posts from this blog

John Henry Newman sets out to defend the idea of Liberal (when I say "liberal" it is in the sense of a Liberal Arts degree)University for the training of young men. (His book is aimed at men and for the purpose of men... I dont know if the education of women at that time was still frowned upon). Within a series of nine discourses (which he initially delivered at the inaugural year of the University in Ireland)he sets out to defend his picture of what a University education should look like. Newman's arguments are logical and well defended with the arguments building, like a tower is built, upon one another. Each discourse takes up a specific thesis and is defended in the following pages. He first demonstrates that Truth is One, that is composed of one overarching, interrelated matrix. There are many systems of thought that are a play, but nonetheless, all Truth is delicately intertwined so that if you neglect one aspect of the Truth in essence you are unraveling the binds...

8/15/2016

  Kevin,                                                               At this time I believe it is necessary that I inform you of what is going on internally. As a high school boys soccer coach I learned that you want team captains who are fully dedicated to the team’s success. If they aren’t, the entire team struggles to reach its goals.  While I am part of the FBBC team, I believe I am lacking in this desired leadership quality myself.  After seven full months in my current position, I do not believe my passions are managing money for the church. As a result I do not have internal peace about the longevity of my current position. I believe there are better people for this role. I believe FBBC would be a stronger organization if a person more suited for this role were here. I c...

Pastor Or Theologian?

I received a facebook message from a long-lost college friend and roommate the other day. In his cordial greeting he noted, and correctly, that I had just graduated with a Masters in Theology. I really appreciated the recognition and congratulations, but what bothered me was his next question. He asked if I was "going to be a Pastor or a Theologian?" I laughed, not because I thought the answer to the question was obvious, but because of the fact that he dichotomized the two disciplines as mutually exclusive. My first reaction was to respond with a smart alec remark about his ignorance and misconstrued views of Christianity and its relationship to education, but then I had to stop and remember that he graduated from the same undergraduate institution which I graduated from, and probably, like me, attended a 'fundy' church growing up. Reminding myself of this context cooled me off a bit and I kindly responded that I would hope someday to do both. Nonetheless, what his ...