If you can't believe the Bible ...

[tjmiller]

Inasmuch as the passage was mentioned in the OP, it might be opportune to look at some of the principal textual witnesses for the **“Trinitarian comma” ** of I John 5:7-8, “And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. And there are three that give testimony on earth…”

The Trinitarian comma is present (with some minor textual variations) in the following:
**vg(mss) ** - a few Latin Vulgate manuscripts: 6-8th C.;
citations by St. John Cassian (d.433);
**it(m) ** - 8th C. Latin collection of Patristic biblical citations;
it(c) - Latin Codex Colbertinus: 12th C.
MS61 - 15th C. Grk NT: first known Grk. NT w/Trin. comma;

The passage is absent in:
Codex Sinaiticus -most ancient copy of entire Grk.NT: 4thC
B - Codex Vaticanus: 4th.C., most of the Greek OT & NT;
citations by *SS. Irenaeus (d.203), Hippolytus (d.235), Cyprian(d.258), Dionysius of Alexandria (d.265), Hilary of Poitiers (d.368), Athanasius (d.373), * et al.;
A - Codex Alexandrinus: 5th C., most of the Greek NT;
syr(p) - Peshitta, or Syriac Vulgate versions: 5th C.;
**syr(h) ** - Philoxenian-Harclean Syriac versions: 6-7th C.
cop(sa) - Sahidic-Coptic versions: 6-8th C.

Even should they have no experience with textual criticism, I wonder what conclusion readers of this thread would come to as to the authenticity of the passage in question, just on the basis of the MS evidence here presented? TC can be a fun detective game!

 

[Kevan]

tjmiller:

In order to believe that the Bible is the sole authority for Christian living and belief, divinely inspired and inerrant, word for word and every word…

The doctrine of biblical inerrancy does not say “word for word and every word” in anything but the autographs (“the original manuscripts”), as I already stated quite clearly. Christians down through the centuries have believed that the book they held in their hands is the word of God, even though they knew that it was translated into their language. In the days of manuscripts, they knew that no two manuscripts (“handwritten texts”) agreed perfectly, due to inevitable human error. Yet they knew, even as the Israelites knew, that the Scriptures are God’s word written, the infallible revelation of his truth.

Therefore, the Bible on one’s desk can not be said to be the “Word of God”.

And yet that is exactly what Christians have always said. But perhaps it could be stated more technically as “It is a good translation of a reliable text of God’s word.” What textual discrepancies remain do not affect faith and practice. (Translating certainly can.)

are we not merely placing our faith in fallible committees of textual critics and translators, rather than (or as much as) in God and His Revealed Truth?

How do you know that Jesus appointed Peter and established his Church? Don’t you claim to read it in the same book you are trying to dislodge from its place of authority? I will admit that my faith in the shorter version of Romans 8:1 does rest on the text critics, but my faith in the Bible as a whole rests ultimately on the providence of God. He has spoken and he has written it in a book. I have that book, and so do you and all the other readers of this forum.

There are a few major places where the text makes “a difference.” I wish these discrepancies weren’t there, but they are. One is the passage in 1 John which you presented in your next post. One is John 8, the woman taken in adultery. And the other(s) escape my memory presently But they don’t change biblical doctrine. The doctrine of the Trinity is still required by other passages of scripture. Adultery is still wrong, yet forgivable, according to other passages of scripture.

The book I hold in my hands is an infallible statement of Christian doctrine and practice. Discrepancies (which usually amount to something equivalent to typographical errors) do not detract from its reliability. It was incorrect for you to call our doctrine profoundly ridiculous on the basis of textual criticism.