These three are one
- This topic has 7 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 6 months, 1 week ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Tim
“For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.”
I John 5:7 NKJVI noticed you did not include the reading of 1 John 5:7 that most all Trinitarians (laymen wise)use to prove the trinity. I know many biblical scholars like Wallace and he even agrees with Bart Ehrman, say that it did not exist in the earliest manuscripts and believe that is not in the original. Many translations also do not include it.
What do you say to the argument that some ante nicene fathers quote the passage such as Tertullian in Against Praxeas Chapt 25, Cypriot of Carthage in On the Lapsed and some others.
I’d like to hear you thoughts on it. If you covered this somewhere I’m sorry and I’ll be more than happy to be referred there.
-
-
-
Michael,
1 John 5:7 is not found in any ancient Greek copies. It is found only in a very few late Greek copies dating after the 14th century. It was also not included in Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (4th cent). While it is claimed that Tertullian sort-of “quoted” it, it is more likely that these were Tertullian’s own words. Tertullian was the first to use the term “trinity” and the first to refer to the Spirit as an independent being, a third person. Tertullian also wrote in Latin, so the statement almost certainly originated in Latin, and it was added very late to a few Greek copies due to the Latin influence. In any case, virtually all textual scholars agree that it is not original to John.
Another point that carries a lot of weight IMO is that this verse was never used in the Trinitarian vs. Arian controversies in the 4th century to help support Trinitarianism. If it had been known, it certainly would have been used and have been a game-changer.
Grace & Peace, Tim
-
I didn’t realize it was only after the 14th century. I did know that Tertullian coined the term trinity in it’s modern sense. I had not thought of his arguments with Arian. You are absolutely correct! He most certainly would have used that verse had it existed. Thank you very much.
I would really love to hear your thoughts on all the different manuscript “strains” and how you put weight to them like the Majority Text vs Critical Text. For ex. things like, your opinion on is the Byzantine closer to the originals argument, your thoughts on debated topics like the Pericope Adulterae, or how you go about your method of translation of the LGV. I find it absolutely fascinating and it comes out just a drop at a time in your BBI lessons and I find myself wanting to hear more from you on those topics. Maybe some day.
I also can’t wait to read your translation on Matthew and Mark.
-
Michael,
In the past, when I first began to translate the LGV, I tended to put more trust in the “Majority Text.” But as I have continued to study the NT in Greek, and having come to understand certain doctrines better, I have increasingly begun to favor the critical text and agree with the latest revisions (as in Nestle-Aland 28th Edition). I am finding that the latest scholarly revisions tend to favor what I have already come to understand about the doctrine of God and His Son. That is, the critical text editions are slowly adding support for what I believe the Scriptures teach generally. For example, Jude 1:5 in the latest revisions says that “Jesus” saved the people out of Egypt, in agreement with what the Latin Vulgate has stated since the 4th century. The earliest Greek copies support this reading. Likewise, John 1:3-4 in the NA-28 changes the location of the period, so that verse 4 begins with “What originated in Him was life” rather than the previous 26th edition which had “what originated” as the ending of verse 3 (without Him nothing originated what originated), which is an awkward and redundant statement.
While almost all recent versions claim to follow the NA-28 text, often they fail to carry through. For example, the NRSV makes the correction in John 1:3-4, but the NASB fails to do so. The NRSVue and ESV make the correction in Jude 1:5, but the latest version of the NASB does neither.
Grace & Peace, Tim
-
-
I think one of the reasons certain translations fail to faithfully translate the latest revisions to the critical text is the fear of running off customers. Changes like those I mentioned above can really rattle certain theological camps. After all, a large part of making new translations is to make money from sales. If you scare off your customer base by translating in a way that seems to contradict their theological systems, the money dries up.
On the other hand, there is also a tendency for the translators to play to the personal biases of the readers. For example, the NRSVue takes a gender neutral approach to translation, and even waters down very specific wording against homosexuality. For example, “homosexuals” in 1 Cor. 6:9 is changed to “male prostitutes” in the NRSV and NRSVue. But this should not be surprising since these translations are done by a committee sponsored by the World Council of Churches, which seeks to downplay homosexuality.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.