"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." -1 John 5:7 (KJV)
This verse may be the most controversial one in the entire Bible. It is said that no Greek manuscripts prior to the 16th or even 17th century contained anything past "For there are three that bear record in heaven," and that the original manuscripts did not contain the explicit reference to the Trinity. It is also very often used by atheists and Muslims to discredit the Bible. To support this idea, I've heard asked, "Why was this verse not used early on when the conflict concerning the nature of Christ was full-blown?"
So I ask:
a.) Was this verse used to defend the divinity of Christ during St. Athanasius' time?
b.) Are there translations of the Bible prior to the 16th century that contained the full reference to the Trinity?
c.) How would a confusion like this arise in the first place? If it were originally there, there should be no credible assertion that it wasn't. If it was not originally there, then there should have been some publicity and resistance when it was inserted. So how would this happen?
c.)
Comments
http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/1john57.asp
The people sponsoring it are truly wicked.
There is a great deal you can learn about the Comma Johanneum but please, please use reputable sources for your own sanity as well as spiritual safety.
If others have not answered this question before I do then I will say more after the weekend as I am busy with Church now.
God bless you
Father Peter
Smith-Van Dyck Bible: ref.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_%28Arabic%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus
Comma Johanneum details
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum
GBU
Note: Muslims usually refer to this as proof that the bible has been corrupted, as if abbrogation of hundreds of passages isnt.
Thank you for your interesting question. It would not surprise me to find that some Coptic clergy, even bishops, might consider this passage to be original and canonical, but it would seem to me that we should not allow every interpolation into Scripture just because we reject the excesses of those who wish to deny it any genuine basis as being Holy and Inspired.
As you have rightly said, there is no early witness to this passage. I am sure that you already know that it is first found in a writing of Priscillian, a Spanish heterodox, and then is found in a variety of Western sources over the centuries. It does not appear in any of our Eastern manuscripts until after the 14th century, and not in any Coptic manuscripts until even later. Indeed I checked the critical edition of the Coptic New Testament published in 1898 by Horner, and that does not have the Johannine Comma.
I would therefore be entirely confident in teaching and preaching that this passage is not part of the original text of 1 John, and that this does not in any way cause us to doubt the stability and reliability of the New Testament text since we can see quite easily how it came to become part of the Latin tradition, beginning first as a gloss on this passage, then becoming inserted as part of the text by various copyists.
We know that even in the West it became clear quite early on in the modern period that this was an interpolation, and Erasmus in the 15th century did not print it in his first Greek New Testament. It was not in the earliest copies of the Vulgate and as you have said, it is not known to the Church Fathers. It would seem that in the early modern period it was allowed to remain in the new editions of the Scripture which were being produced simply because of the pressure put on scholars to include it. Thus it found its way into the King James Version and I see that it is in the New King James version even though a note points out that it is found in only a handful of very late Greek manuscripts.
I hope these comments help.
I wasn't sure why Father Peter was calling them wicked at first, but he's right. Some of the pages on that site have very evil motives. He makes a lot of anti-Catholic claims, associating them with the devil, and devaluing the liturgy and sacraments. Although some of that information on the link you gave may be right, just be careful.
Hehe i'll admit, I did only skim through it. It's not a site I'm familiar with.
I thought it would have fit in nicely since St. John emphasized Christ's divinity more than the other New Testament authors. And I guess part of me is disappointed that it wasn't in the original manuscripts.