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.
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.