1 John 5:8 -- Forgery?

[mdvaden]

1 John 5:7-8

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

The highlighted words from "And... to ...blood" are omitted in all Greek texts except one.

The one is:

The Stephens Text of 1550, used to translate the New Testament into English for the King James Version in 1611.

What sayest thee about that kind of inclusion?

Maybe we can share a few others we are aware of.

According to the writing of the vast majority of God's Word in Greek texts, the verse should read:

1 John 5:7-8

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8 and these three agree in one.

How concerned do you become when sections are added into the bible? How about just a word or two?

 

[lmnop9876]

ummmmm... think you've got it the wrong way round.
the usual complaint is that it should go:

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

 

[GraceInHim]

dunno - just read KJV... the NKJV is different wording from the old... stick with the old

 

[Odsolo]

[SIZE=-1]The highlighted words from "And... to ...blood" are omitted in all Greek texts except one.

The one is:

The Stephens Text of 1550, used to translate the New Testament into English for the King James Version in 1611.

What sayest thee about that kind of inclusion?

Maybe we can share a few others we are aware of.

According to the writing of the vast majority of God's Word in Greek texts, the verse should read:

How concerned do you become when sections are added into the bible? How about just a word or two?[/SIZE]

As someone has said you got it backward. I'm not aware of any mansuscript taht does not have verse 8. But I would be interested in what source you got this information from.

The usual argument is that 1 John5:7 was supposedly added to the Bible in the 14th, 15th, or 16th century. The critics can't reach a consensus. Their argument centers on there is no "Greek" manuscript that has it before one of those dates. What the critics don't say is it does appear in earlier Greek manuscripts and even earlier in Latin manuscripts.

BUT I can show where it was quoted by early church fathers as early as 180 and 200 AD.

 

[PaladinValer]

It is a forgery, yes. The earliest copies of the Vulgate didn't include it, and it is vacant in most of the pre-7th century ce sources.

Erasmus didn't include it in his first two editions, because through textual analysis, he knew it wasn't authentic. It took a group of unscrupulous forgers to "create" an "ancient Greek text" and threw it under his nose before he very reluctantly bowed into pressure to include it in his third edition.

Moral of the lesson: KJV is an inferior translation today.

 

[Nazaroo]

This is loaded and emotional speech.

It is not a 'forgery'.

It may be an early scribal gloss that got included in the main text accidentally, and so found its way into the manuscript tradition.

Or it may have been inadvertantly dropped in a manuscript due to haplography.
That is, due to similar endings of the lines, a scribe skipped over a line by accident and dropped half a verse. Then this was copied for a while without anyone being aware of the omission. Later, even when the missing portion was re-inserted, a certain number of manuscripts would be perpetually copied which did not contain the verses. This is one of the most common errors in hand-copying manuscripts.

In either case, it is a harmless bit of esoteric observation, and introduces no new significant doctrine, nor does it change any basic doctrines of the New Testament.

So 'Forgery' is a very inappropriate and unfortunate term for what has all the appearance of a simple scribal error in one direction or another.

Even when significant portions of text are involved, like the ending of Mark, or the Pericope de Adultera (Jn 8:1-11), there is usually no new doctrine introduced or radical change in the meaning of a gospel with or without the passage. The most that can be said is that these passages (if not originally part of this or that book) are well-meaning attempts to either preserve a well known and accepted tradition or story (John), or else attempts at fixing a missing page or portion of scripture which has been lost (Mark).

 

[justified]

Or it may have been inadvertantly dropped in a manuscript due to haplography.
That is, due to similar endings of the lines, a scribe skipped over a line by accident and dropped half a verse. Then this was copied for a while without anyone being aware of the omission. Later, even when the missing portion was re-inserted, a certain number of manuscripts would be perpetually copied which did not contain the verses. This is one of the most common errors in hand-copying manuscripts.

Of course, there is no evidence that it is haplography. There are no Greek texts from before the late Middle Ages that bear the verse. I am not even aware of any reconstructions which have suggested that haplography would have been possible. The document given to erasmus to show that the verse "existed" is often considered a forgery, as there has been speculation that it was created for that occasion.

 

[Nazaroo]

Well, it may not have all the ideal technical features of a classic 'haplography':
a half-dozen similar letters at the ending or beginning of a line or clause.

But it seems quite plausible to me that an aging scribe with Alzheimer's from drinking too much wine could have easily read the the whole verse and begun to write, then paused for a sip of refreshment, assumed he'd written the whole thing, and continued with the next verse, leaving out a whole clause.

I know I've done that, and (*sip*)...

Where was I? Oh yes. And so you can see by simple inspection that dropping a clause is not only completely plausible, but (*slurp*).

Peace from Naz.

 

[WAB]

This is loaded and emotional speech.

It is not a 'forgery'.

It may be an early scribal gloss that got included in the main text accidentally, and so found its way into the manuscript tradition.

Or it may have been inadvertantly dropped in a manuscript due to haplography.
That is, due to similar endings of the lines, a scribe skipped over a line by accident and dropped half a verse. Then this was copied for a while without anyone being aware of the omission. Later, even when the missing portion was re-inserted, a certain number of manuscripts would be perpetually copied which did not contain the verses. This is one of the most common errors in hand-copying manuscripts.

In either case, it is a harmless bit of esoteric observation, and introduces no new significant doctrine, nor does it change any basic doctrines of the New Testament.

So 'Forgery' is a very inappropriate and unfortunate term for what has all the appearance of a simple scribal error in one direction or another.

Even when significant portions of text are involved, like the ending of Mark, or the Pericope de Adultera (Jn 8:1-11), there is usually no new doctrine introduced or radical change in the meaning of a gospel with or without the passage. The most that can be said is that these passages (if not originally part of this or that book) are well-meaning attempts to either preserve a well known and accepted tradition or story (John), or else attempts at fixing a missing page or portion of scripture which has been lost (Mark).

Well, well, well.... Can finally say Amen to a whole post of yours!

 

[PreacherMan4U]

The bottom line is, what possible fraudulant purpose would there be by adding or dropping a phrase? In what way does it defraud? The answer is, it does not. Fraud is not the propper term to be used. Scribal error or text glossing? Yes, Probably so. However, one can't find any fraudulant basis for this.

Mike

 

[justified]

The bottom line is, what possible fraudulant purpose would there be by adding or dropping a phrase? In what way does it defraud? The answer is, it does not. Fraud is not the propper term to be used. Scribal error or text glossing? Yes, Probably so. However, one can't find any fraudulant basis for this.

If there was not a greek manuscript extant in the 16th century which had the clause, and if a few Romanists from Spain came along and created one by back-translating from the Vulgate, and passed this off to Erasmus as an authentic Greek manuscript -- that is forgery.

 

[PreacherMan4U]

To forge is to deceive by fraudulant means. What Biblical doctrine does this phrase invalidate? What deception occurs? This term is dead wrong! The Scripture is in no way compromised by this phrase.

Mike

 

[justified]

It has nothing to do with the scriptures our with theology. It has to do with the authenticity of a particular phrase in the biblical book. my goodness.

 

[PaladinValer]

True, it isn't a "forgery" at least in the way we often negatively define it today. However, in the classic definition of "forgery," it fits the bill.

That certain, "addition" we'll call it then, can be found in some of the ancient, pre-7th century sources, but something like 90% of the time, it is found besides the text. To be plainer, it is literally an early study note, such as what you will find in today's study editions of your favorite Bible translation or paraphrase.

This doesn't mean that it isn't "true," but it does mean that it isn't Biblical. However, it is most certainly a valuable bit of Holy Tradition.

 

[Dmckay]

It has been documented that when Erasmus was working to complete his Greek text he was approached by representatives of the church and asked to include 1 John 5:7 to strengthen the position on the doctirne of the Trinity. His initial response was that the verse was not in any of the Greek manuscripts in his possession. They insisted that it be included despite this. He responded that if they could provide him with a Greek manuscript that included the verse, then he would do so.

It is reported that they returned shortly with a new fragment that had the portion of 1 John 5 and that it included verse seven. Despite the fact that it was obvious to Erasmas that they ink wasn't even dry, he conceded to their "request" and included the verse. The only texts that include this passage are manuscripts which are dated ater Erasmas' work.

 

[oldsage]

If there was not a greek manuscript extant in the 16th century which had the clause, and if a few Romanists from Spain came along and created one by back-translating from the Vulgate, and passed this off to Erasmus as an authentic Greek manuscript -- that is forgery.

umm, the Vulgate doesn't have the Father, Son, Spirit; phrase

Chris

 

[justified]

umm, the Vulgate doesn't have the Father, Son, Spirit; phrase

Not modern editions. Consult your Novum Testamentum and you'll see vg^mss and the phrase in latin: in terra, spiritus et aqua et sanguis et tres sunt, qui testimonium di**** in caelo, pater, verbum et spiritus et hi tres unum sunt.

 

[Nazaroo]

I think you are talking about the Old Latin, a group of pre-vulgate or non-vulgate influenced Latin texts representing the popular bible before Jerome's time.

Anyway, I think what you mean is that *if* those people did make up a doctored NT Greek manuscript just for Erasmus then that would be indeed a 'forgery' with intent to deceive for a political purpose or a prank. But the reading is old, and this really doesn't apply to the variant generally, or variants in general. Most are accidental differences which arise in the process of copying and translation, or in some cases are 'theologically' motivated in the act of 'correcting' what the copyist perceives is an error or wrong reading. This means that even with deliberate alterations, the scribes were usually acting conscientiously and in good faith as guardians of the text, whether mistaken or not.

"forgery" has the connotation if not the definition of a fraudulent or evil intent implied or attributed to the 'forger'.

 

[justified]

I think you are talking about the Old Latin, a group of pre-vulgate or non-vulgate influenced Latin texts representing the popular bible before Jerome's time.

I'm well aware of what I meant. I meant vulgate mss. You realise of course that the vulgate is a wider group of readings than what we have today, right?

Anyway, I think what you mean is that *if* those people did make up a doctored NT Greek manuscript just for Erasmus then that would be indeed a 'forgery' with intent to deceive for a political purpose or a prank. But the reading is old, and this really doesn't apply to the variant generally, or variants in general. Most are accidental differences which arise in the process of copying and translation, or in some cases are 'theologically' motivated in the act of 'correcting' what the copyist perceives is an error or wrong reading. This means that even with deliberate alterations, the scribes were usually acting conscientiously and in good faith as guardians of the text, whether mistaken or not.

I knew what I meant, if of course this was directed at me. And exactly how old is the reading? In Greek, that is.

 

[mdvaden]

To forge is to deceive by fraudulant means only half the time.

Guess what, that quote is a forgery.

How do like that !!

Below is the real quote.

To forge is to deceive by fraudulant means

Notice they don't mean the same thing? If the Word of God is pure exactly as He gave it, how could any inclusion or exlcusion leave it pure?