REMARKS ON 1 JOHN 5:7

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, Cal. · Jul 28, 1881

REMARKS ON 1 JOHN 5:7.

DR. CLARKE occupies nearly eight pages in his Commentary, on this text. We give only the substance of his remarks:—

"But it is likely this verse is not genuine. It is wanting in every MS. of this epistle written before the invention of printing, one excepted, the Codex Montfortii, in Trinity College, Dublin; the others which omit this verse amount to one hundred and twelve.

"It is wanting in both the Syriac, all the Arabic, Æthiopic, the Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, Slavonian, &c., in a word, in all the ancient versions but the Vulgate; and even of this version many of the most ancient and correct MSS. have it not. It is wanting also in all the ancient Greek Fathers; and in most even of the Latin.

"The words as they exist in all the Greek MSS., with the exception of the Codex Montfortii, are the following:—

"'6. This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7. For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one. 9. If we receive the witness of man, the witness of God is greater,' &c.

"The words that are omitted by all the MSS., the above excepted, and all the versions, the Vulgate excepted, are these:—

"'[In Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one; and there are three which bear witness in earth.]'

"To make the whole more clear, that every reader may see what has been added I shall set down these verses, with the inserted words in brackets.

"'6. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 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. 9. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater,' &c. Any man may see, on examining the words, that if those included in brackets, which are wanting in the MSS. and versions, be omitted, there is no want of connection; and as to the sense, it is complete and perfect, without them; and, indeed, much more so than with them. I shall conclude this part of the note by observing, with Dr. Dodd, that there are some internal and accidental marks which may render the passage suspected; for the sense is complete, and indeed more clear and better preserved, without it. Besides, the Spirit is mentioned, both as a witness in Heaven and on earth; so that the six witnesses are thereby reduced to five, and the equality of number, or antithesis between the witnesses in Heaven and on earth, is quite taken away. Besides, what need of witnesses in Heaven? No one there doubts that Jesus is the Messiah; and if it be said that Father, Son, and Spirit are witnesses on earth, then there are five witnesses on earth, and none in Heaven; not to say that there is a little difficulty in interpreting how the Word or the Son can be a witness to himself.'

"The writers that have quoted it are comparatively recent or spurious, for those of any note which have been supposed, from certain expressions in their works, to have had reference to this verse, have been proved by learned men to have had no such text in view. A great and good man has said that 'the seventh verse, in conjunction with the sixth and eighth, has been quoted by Tertullian, Cyprian, and an uninterrupted train of Fathers.' But a more incautious assertion was never made, as the preceding list will prove; and the evidence on the subject I have most carefully examined. Bengel, who was an excellent critic and a good man, endeavored to defend it, but without success; and Michaelis, demonstrated its spuriousness from Bengel's five concessions. Knittel has defended its authenticity with much critical acumen: Hezelius with great sagacity; David Martin of Utrecht, with much honest simplicity; and Dean Travis with abundance of zeal, without much knowledge of the critical bearings of the subject. Socinians need not glory that it is indefensible, and that honest Trinitarians give it up; for the sacred doctrine which it appears to express is diffused through every part of the Scriptures, and is as inexpugnable as a rock of adamant, and will live and prevail in the church of Christ while sun and moon endure, and till time shall be swallowed up in eternity."

The following is Dr. Clarke's summary of the evidence:—

"SUMMARY of the whole evidence relative to the Three Heavenly Witnesses. 1 John 5:7.

"1. One hundred and thirteen Greek MSS. are extant, containing the First Epistle of John, and the text in question is wanting in one hundred and twelve. It only exists in the Codex Montfortii (a comparatively recent MS.), already described. The Codex Ravianus, in the Royal Library at Berlin, is a transcript taken from the Complutensian Polyglot.

"2. All the Greek Fathers omit the verse, though many of them quote both verses 6 and 8, applying them to the trinity, and divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit; yea, and endeavor to prove the doctrine of the trinity from verse 6 and verse 8, without referring to any such verse as the 7th, which, had it existed, would have been a more positive proof, and one that could not have been overlooked.

"3. The first place in which the verse appears in Greek is the Greek translation of the Acts of the Council of Lateran, held A. D. 1215.

"4. Though it is found in many Latin copies, yet it does not appear that any written previously to the TENTH CENTURY contains it.

"5. The Latin Fathers do not quote it, even where it would have greatly strengthened their arguments; and where, had it existed, it might have been most naturally expected.

"6. Virgilius, bishop of Tapsus, at the conclusion of the fifth century, is the first who seems to have referred expressly to the three heavenly witnesses; but his quotation does not agree with the present text either in words or in sense; and besides, he is a writer of very little credit, nor does the place alleged appear to learned men to be genuine.

"7. The Latin writers who do refer to the three heavenly witnesses vary greatly in their quotations, the more ancient placing the eighth verse before the seventh, and very many omitting, after the earthly witnesses, the clause these three are one. Others who insert these three are one add in Christ Jesus; others use different terms.

"8. It is wanting in all the ancient versions, the Vulgate excepted; but the more ancient copies of this have it not; and those which have it vary greatly among themselves, as may be seen in the specimens already produced.

"9. It is wanting in the first edition of Erasmus, A. D. 1516, which is properly the editio princeps of the Greek text.

"It is wanting also in his second edition, 1519, but he added it in the third from the Codex Montfortii.

"It is wanting in the editions of Aldus, Gerbelius, Cephalæus, &c.

"It is wanting in the German translation of Luther, and in all the editions of it published during his lifetime.

"It is inserted in our early English translations, but with marks of doubtfulness, as has already been shown.

"10. In short, it stands on no authority sufficient to authenticate any part of a revelation professing to have come from God."

In regard to the Greek MS. which contains the disputed words we will add: Erasmus omitted the words because there was known no Greek MS. which contained them. When this MS. was produced he then inserted the words, although he was of opinion that it was constructed from the Latin Vulgate, and this is now the opinion of critics. If this be so, it scarcely deserves the name of "a Greek MS."—certainly it is not entitled to the credit of one.

The following are the closing words of the remarks on this subject in the "Companion to the Revised Version":—

"No defender of the genuineness of 1 John 5:7, 8, will probably arise in the future. The controversy regarding the passage is finished, and will never be renewed. But the literary history to which it has given rise will not be forgotten. A small library might be formed of the books and pamphlets which have been written for or against the words. Among the authors of these works some very celebrated names appear. That of the illustrious Sir Isaac Newton has a place in the list. He wrote against the genuineness of the words, and thus did good service in the cause of truth. But by far the most memorable event in this lengthened and often bitter controversy was the publication of the letters of Professor Porson to Archdeacon Travis. These letters, by their acuteness and ability, whatever may be thought of their spirit, virtually settled the case against the genuineness of the passage. And although since then the voices of some zealous friends of Scripture—bishops, cardinals, and others—have been unwisely lifted up in defense of 'the three Heavenly witnesses,' yet so decidedly have the minds of all scholars now been made up as to the spuriousness of the words, that they have been omitted in the Revised Version, without a line even on the margin to indicate that they had ever been admitted to a place in the sacred text."