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

A response to my beloved mother: part 2

READ THIS POST FIRST MY MOTHER : "I'm a registered Conservative, but my vote counted since they endorsed McCain, so I guess it all depends on who the Libertarian's endorse, and even if it were someone difference, at least you would have had a part in voting for the "most" righteous candidate, and McCain was the one even though he's still not the Christian ideal! Remember, Bill Clinton was a "pro-choice" candidate as well as one who furthered the homosexual agenda, so it wasn't surprising to me that 9/11 happened after his term was up and it's not surprising that the economy is faltering so badly now, and it won't surprise me if Obama continues the downward spiral, even if it is into socialistic policies since that's how Europe has gone since they left off looking to God. It doesn't matter what the rest of the world is doing since the majority have been anti-God for so long and their nations have paid for that for centuries (Dark...

I don't have all the answers, but I do have two cents.

My friend and fellow recovering ex-fundamentalist , I greet you joyously knowing the freedom you have found in leaving fundamentalism, however I am saddened by your departure as a whole from our Lord. I indeed understand the hardship which you have faced is cause for questioning God’s existence, faithfulness, and love to his creation. I would like to respond to you because I feel like I understand your socio-religious background. Let me first tell you my goal is not to re-convert you, but rather to give you a second thought from one who grew up in similar roots, whose posture of faith remains bent toward the gospel. I also grew up in ultra-conservative fundamentalism. If names like Peter Ruckman, Jack Hyles, Arlin Horton, etc, mean anything to you than you will understand. I graduated from PCC. OMG. I cannot believe it, but it’s true. What a crazy place. Fear, guilt, shame, legalism were the name of the game! As long as you “caught the spirit” all of life would be good and God would b...

The Intolerance of Presbyterian Creeds

The bind between American political allegiance and Protestant evangelical conservatism is a key which unlocks the door of much early American civil history especially during the antebellum era through the early 20th century. To be conservative and American meant that you must regard a Protestant form of Christianity, namely the revivalistic, moral gospel which declared a morally conservative view of the socio-political system as king. In fact, not to be Protestant and politically conservative was in line with defaming the stars and stripes. Hart describes a situation in the early 20th century where the state of Utah elected and appointed a Mormon Apostle, Reed Smoot, to the U.S. Senate. Smoot underwent serious investigation from a Senate appointed committee to deliberate upon the ability of a Mormon to function in the place of a Senator given his religious views. The conservative Protestant ethos of the age was skeptical of any other religious conviction in its ability to be “American”...