From: dlhpfm!dlh@ncoast.org (daniel lance herrick)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: 1 John 5: 6-8
Date: 16 Aug 92 04:56:28 GMT
Organization: dlh Performance Marketing

aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron) writes

questions that provide an opportunity to apply a presuppositional
apologetic to text criticism:

> OK, Bible scholars, could someone explain this passage to me.  Here are three
> different translations of the passage:
> 				1 John 5:6-8
[Scott quotes NASB and NIV which omit the *Johannine comma*, "the Father, the
 	  Word, and the Holy Ghost:  and these three are one."
> Why are they so different?

Our esteemed moderator represents fairly the position of the modern
critics:
 
> [The translations differ because the underlying Greek texts they are
> working from differ.  The difference between NASB and NIV seems to be
> just in verse numbering.  But the story behind the AV is more
> interesting.  It appears that the Trinitarian addition was added
> during the 4th Cent. discussions on the Trinity.  It ended up in the
> Latin Bibles as a "gloss" (an explanation), which made its way into
> the text over time.  There are no Greek manuscripts before the 11th
> Cent with it, nor is it in quotations from 1 John in the Fathers.

Edward Hills, whom I mentioned in recent discussions of applying a
presuppositional apologetic to the text, in his book _The King James
Version Defended!_ adduces four reasons for the possible acceptance of
the comma as Scripture (summarizing):

First, Hills points out that the terminology is very odd if the intent
of the interpolator was to defend trinitarian orthodoxy.  The New
Testament formulation is "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."  To introduce
a different formula is to introduce confusion rather than familiar
doctrine.

Second, Hills notes "It is a common Scriptural usage to present solemn
truths or warnings in groups of three or four." (Prov 30, Genesis 40, 
I Chronicles 21, Matthew 12:40) Hills insists that the reader of I John 5
would find the lack of the comma uncharacteristic of Scripture.  When
the encounters "spirit, water, and blood" he would then expect a
parallel group of three to follow.  Missing it jars.

Third, quoting Hills, "The words _spirit_, _water_, and _blood_ are
neuter in gender but in I John 1:8 they are treated as masculine."  In
the absence of the comma this grammar is difficult to explain. 
Conversly, if the comma is genuine, and the masculine nouns Father and
Spirit are there, then treating the others as masculine is coherent.

Fourth, omitting the comma could arise from a reasonably common scribal
error (homoioteleuton - the error of common endings).

Fifth, Hills adduces a rationale for assuming the Latin to be more
reliable than early Greek manuscripts:  Sabellianism, a second century
heresy, asserted the identity of Father, Son, and Spirit.  Hills argues
that this heresy, limited to the eastern church, may have influenced
copyists to exclude the comma inasmuch as it could be read as
supporting Sabellianism.  If homoioteleuton had produced a lot of
manuscripts that did not contain the comma, orthodox scribes engaged in
fighting Sabellianism could have construed the comma as a manifestation
of the Sabellian heresy.

Admittedly, this explanation for the inclusion of the comma flows from
theological presuppositions scarce among modern textual critics.

Presuppositions govern the modern schools of text criticism no less
than they govern the defenders of the received text tradition (the text
tradition that underlies the King James Authorised Version).
dan  of dlh Performance Marketing  POBox 1419  Mentor Ohio 44061
         NCoast.org!dlhpfm!dlh or ab.com!dlhpfm.uucp!dlh