Article:And These Three Are One by Jesse Boyd - Revision history

Beza 1598 at 13:11, 17 March 2016

2016-03-17T13:11:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:11, 17 March 2016
Line 711:		Line 711:
	* 113. [[John Burgon]], "The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels" in Unholy Hands On The Bible, Vol. 1, Including the Complete Works of John W. Burgon, Dean of Chichester, Ed. by [[Jay P. Green]] (Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Trust Fund, 1990), A-7.		* 113. [[John Burgon]], "The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels" in Unholy Hands On The Bible, Vol. 1, Including the Complete Works of John W. Burgon, Dean of Chichester, Ed. by [[Jay P. Green]] (Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Trust Fund, 1990), A-7.
	* 114. [[Gail Riplinger\|Riplinger]], [[New Age Bible Versions]], 511.		* 114. [[Gail Riplinger\|Riplinger]], [[New Age Bible Versions]], 511.

			{{Donate}}

Textus Receptus Bible: /* Footnotes */

2011-01-19T21:23:55Z

Footnotes

Show changes

Textus Receptus Bible: /* Historical Analysis */

2011-01-19T21:14:27Z

Historical Analysis

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:14, 19 January 2011
Line 46:		Line 46:
	The epistle of [[First Epistle of John\|I John]] was probably written late in the first century (ca. 90) from Ephesus by none other than the [[St. John the Apostle\|Apostle John]]. The intended audience is not exactly clear; however, the lack of personal references suggests that it was written to Christians all across Asia Minor. The same can be said for [[Gospel of John\|John's Gospel]] which was also written from Ephesus in the same general time period (ca. [[85 AD\|85]]-[[90 AD\|90]]).It is interesting to note the literary coherence that exists between these two separate [[New Testament]] writings. The well-known Greek scholar, A.T. Robertson, once wrote,		The epistle of [[First Epistle of John\|I John]] was probably written late in the first century (ca. 90) from Ephesus by none other than the [[St. John the Apostle\|Apostle John]]. The intended audience is not exactly clear; however, the lack of personal references suggests that it was written to Christians all across Asia Minor. The same can be said for [[Gospel of John\|John's Gospel]] which was also written from Ephesus in the same general time period (ca. [[85 AD\|85]]-[[90 AD\|90]]).It is interesting to note the literary coherence that exists between these two separate [[New Testament]] writings. The well-known Greek scholar, A.T. Robertson, once wrote,

	:"in the whole of the First Epistle [[1 John\|I John]] there is hardly a single thought that is not found in the Gospel [John]."[2]		:"in the whole of the First Epistle [[First Epistle of John\|I John]] there is hardly a single thought that is not found in the Gospel of John."<sup>[2]</sup>

	This coherence has been considered even more evident than that which exists between Luke and Acts. Such a fact has led some to believe that I John served as preface or dedicatory epistle to the Gospel of John, for both Books are characterized by repetition, contrast, parallelism, personal elements, profound spirituality, and doctrine.[3]Historically speaking, it is very possible that the Gospel of John was attached to the epistle as it was sent out to the addressees. I John was to be read as an introduction or commentary on the teachings of the Gospel. John Ebrard writes:		This coherence has been considered even more evident than that which exists between Luke and Acts. Such a fact has led some to believe that I John served as preface or dedicatory epistle to the Gospel of John, for both Books are characterized by repetition, contrast, parallelism, personal elements, profound spirituality, and doctrine.[3]Historically speaking, it is very possible that the Gospel of John was attached to the epistle as it was sent out to the addressees. [[First Epistle of John\|I John]] was to be read as an introduction or commentary on the teachings of the Gospel. John Ebrard writes:

	:It [[1 John\|I John]] bears the stamp of a preface or dedicatory epistle. The Apostle addresses himself to specific readers, and holds communion, person to person, with them, in that we mark the essence of the epistle; but he does this on occasion of another communication, to which this is attached, and to which it refers; and therefore, in its form, it is no epistle, no simple and direct substitute of oral speech, but an address uttered on occasion of the reading of another and different communication.[4]		:It [[First Epistle of John\|I John]] bears the stamp of a preface or dedicatory epistle. The Apostle addresses himself to specific readers, and holds communion, person to person, with them, in that we mark the essence of the epistle; but he does this on occasion of another communication, to which this is attached, and to which it refers; and therefore, in its form, it is no epistle, no simple and direct substitute of oral speech, but an address uttered on occasion of the reading of another and different communication.<sup>[4]</sup>

	The exhortations contained in I John were uttered by the Apostle on occasion of the contents contained in the Gospel. Having understood the principles of Christians fellowship promulgated in the Epistle, the reader could proceed to understand the entire basis of his fellowship, the life and work of Jesus Christ as promulgated in the Gospel.		The exhortations contained in I John were uttered by the Apostle on occasion of the contents contained in the Gospel. Having understood the principles of Christians fellowship promulgated in the Epistle, the reader could proceed to understand the entire basis of his fellowship, the life and work of Jesus Christ as promulgated in the Gospel.
Line 56:		Line 56:
	Regarding the issue at hand, such a distinct literary/historical coherence fully supports the inclusion of the Johannine Comma. The resounding theme of the [[Gospel of John]] is the divinity of Jesus Christ. Such is summed up in [[John 10:30]], when Jesus says, "I and my Father are one." This same theme is prevalent in the Epistle, being concisely and clearly stated in 5:7-8.The Comma truly bears coherence with the message of John's Gospel in this sense. It serves as an occasion to introduce the doctrine of the Trinity as the original readers prepared to study the attached Gospel. Although Christ's divinity is inferred throughout the epistle, one is not confronted with such succinct declaration as is conveyed in the Comma.If this passage is omitted, it seems that the theme of John's Gospel would lack a proper introduction.		Regarding the issue at hand, such a distinct literary/historical coherence fully supports the inclusion of the Johannine Comma. The resounding theme of the [[Gospel of John]] is the divinity of Jesus Christ. Such is summed up in [[John 10:30]], when Jesus says, "I and my Father are one." This same theme is prevalent in the Epistle, being concisely and clearly stated in 5:7-8.The Comma truly bears coherence with the message of John's Gospel in this sense. It serves as an occasion to introduce the doctrine of the Trinity as the original readers prepared to study the attached Gospel. Although Christ's divinity is inferred throughout the epistle, one is not confronted with such succinct declaration as is conveyed in the Comma.If this passage is omitted, it seems that the theme of John's Gospel would lack a proper introduction.

	It is interesting to note that one of the earliest allusions to the Johannine Comma in church history is promulgated in connection to the thematic statement made by the Lord in [[John 10:30]].[5]Cyprian writes around [[250 AD\|A.D. 250]], "The Lord says 'I and the Father are one' and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'"[6]The theological teaching of the Comma most definitely bears coherence with the overriding theme of John's Gospel. There is no reason to believe that the verse is not genuine in this sense, for it serves as a proper prelude to the theme of the Gospel which, historically speaking, most likely accompanied the Epistle as it was sent out to its original audience.		It is interesting to note that one of the earliest allusions to the Johannine Comma in church history is promulgated in connection to the thematic statement made by the Lord in [[John 10:30]].<sup>[5]</sup>Cyprian writes around [[250 AD\|A.D. 250]], "The Lord says 'I and the Father are one' and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'"<sup>[6]</sup>The theological teaching of the Comma most definitely bears coherence with the overriding theme of John's Gospel. There is no reason to believe that the verse is not genuine in this sense, for it serves as a proper prelude to the theme of the Gospel which, historically speaking, most likely accompanied the Epistle as it was sent out to its original audience.

	The heresy of Gnosticism is also of notable importance with regard to the historical context surrounding the Johannine Comma. This "unethical intellectualism" had begun to make inroads among churches in John's day; its influence would continue to grow up until the second century when it gave pure Christianity a giant struggle.[7]Generally speaking, Gnosticism can be described as a variety of syncretic religious movements in the early period of church history that sought to answer the question, "What must I do to be saved?" The Gnostic answer was that a person must possess a secret knowledge.[8]One of the major tenets of Gnosticism was the essential evil of matter; the physical body, in other words, was viewed as evil. According to this line of thought, Jesus Christ could not have been fully God and fully man, for this would have required him to posses an evil physical body.		The heresy of Gnosticism is also of notable importance with regard to the historical context surrounding the Johannine Comma. This "unethical intellectualism" had begun to make inroads among churches in John's day; its influence would continue to grow up until the second century when it gave pure Christianity a giant struggle.<sup>[7]</sup>Generally speaking, Gnosticism can be described as a variety of syncretic religious movements in the early period of church history that sought to answer the question, "What must I do to be saved?" The Gnostic answer was that a person must possess a secret knowledge.<sup>[8]</sup>One of the major tenets of Gnosticism was the essential evil of matter; the physical body, in other words, was viewed as evil. According to this line of thought, Jesus Christ could not have been fully God and fully man, for this would have required him to posses an evil physical body.

	The seeds of the Gnostic heresy seem to be before John's mind in his first epistle; nine times he gives tests for knowing truth in conjunction with the verb ginwskw (to know).[9]This being said, the Johannine Comma would have constituted an integral component of the case the Apostle made against the false teachings of the Gnostics, especially with regard to the nature of Christ. Robertson notes that John's Gospel was written to prove the deity of Christ, assuming his humanity, while I John was written to prove the humanity of Christ, assuming his deity.[10]He goes on to say, "Certainly both ideas appear in both books."[11]If these notions are true, then the Comma is important to John's polemic. Jesus Christ, the human Son of God, is the eternal, living Word (cf. [[John 1:1]]).The Word, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, bears witness to "he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ" ([[1 John 5:6\|I John 5:6]]).This assertion would have flown right into the face of Gnosticism.		The seeds of the Gnostic heresy seem to be before John's mind in his first epistle; nine times he gives tests for knowing truth in conjunction with the verb ginwskw (to know).<sup>[9]</sup>This being said, the Johannine Comma would have constituted an integral component of the case the Apostle made against the false teachings of the Gnostics, especially with regard to the nature of Christ. Robertson notes that John's Gospel was written to prove the deity of Christ, assuming his humanity, while I John was written to prove the humanity of Christ, assuming his deity.[10]He goes on to say, "Certainly both ideas appear in both books."[11]If these notions are true, then the Comma is important to John's polemic. Jesus Christ, the human Son of God, is the eternal, living Word (cf. [[John 1:1]]).The Word, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, bears witness to "he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ" ([[1 John 5:6\|I John 5:6]]).This assertion would have flown right into the face of Gnosticism.

	On the flip side of the coin, the Gnostics would have completely disregarded the truth promulgated in the [[Johannine Comma]]. In fact, they may have excised it from the text in the same way that Marcion took a butcher knife to the New Testament in the second century. Also, the Arian heresy, which taught that Jesus was not God but a created being, grew out of Gnosticism. In fact, it was widespread in the Church during the third and fourth centuries. Not long after the Council of Nicea ([[325 AD\|A.D. 325]]), an ecumenical council that denounced Arianism, "the whole world woke from a deep slumber and discovered that it had become Arian."[12]Perhaps the prevalent influences of these heresies were responsible for the text falling out of many manuscripts and versions of the [[New Testament]]. This hypothesis is at least as plausible as competing theories which suppose that someone added the verses to combat heretical teaching.		On the flip side of the coin, the Gnostics would have completely disregarded the truth promulgated in the [[Johannine Comma]]. In fact, they may have excised it from the text in the same way that Marcion took a butcher knife to the New Testament in the second century. Also, the Arian heresy, which taught that Jesus was not God but a created being, grew out of Gnosticism. In fact, it was widespread in the Church during the third and fourth centuries. Not long after the Council of Nicea ([[325 AD\|A.D. 325]]), an ecumenical council that denounced Arianism, "the whole world woke from a deep slumber and discovered that it had become Arian."[12]Perhaps the prevalent influences of these heresies were responsible for the text falling out of many manuscripts and versions of the [[New Testament]]. This hypothesis is at least as plausible as competing theories which suppose that someone added the verses to combat heretical teaching.

Textus Receptus Bible: /* Historical Analysis */

2011-01-19T21:11:46Z

Historical Analysis

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:11, 19 January 2011
Line 44:		Line 44:
	==Historical Analysis==		==Historical Analysis==

	The epistle of [[1 John\|I John]] was probably written late in the first century (ca. 90) from Ephesus by none other than the [[St. John the Apostle\|Apostle John]]. The intended audience is not exactly clear; however, the lack of personal references suggests that it was written to Christians all across Asia Minor. The same can be said for [[Gospel of John\|John's Gospel]] which was also written from Ephesus in the same general time period (ca. [[85 AD\|85]]-[[90 AD\|90]]).It is interesting to note the literary coherence that exists between these two separate [[New Testament]] writings. The well-known Greek scholar, A.T. Robertson, once wrote,		The epistle of [[First Epistle of John\|I John]] was probably written late in the first century (ca. 90) from Ephesus by none other than the [[St. John the Apostle\|Apostle John]]. The intended audience is not exactly clear; however, the lack of personal references suggests that it was written to Christians all across Asia Minor. The same can be said for [[Gospel of John\|John's Gospel]] which was also written from Ephesus in the same general time period (ca. [[85 AD\|85]]-[[90 AD\|90]]).It is interesting to note the literary coherence that exists between these two separate [[New Testament]] writings. The well-known Greek scholar, A.T. Robertson, once wrote,

	:"in the whole of the First Epistle [[1 John\|I John]] there is hardly a single thought that is not found in the Gospel [John]."[2]		:"in the whole of the First Epistle [[1 John\|I John]] there is hardly a single thought that is not found in the Gospel [John]."[2]

Textus Receptus Bible: /* Historical Analysis */

2011-01-19T21:11:18Z

Historical Analysis

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:11, 19 January 2011
Line 50:		Line 50:
	This coherence has been considered even more evident than that which exists between Luke and Acts. Such a fact has led some to believe that I John served as preface or dedicatory epistle to the Gospel of John, for both Books are characterized by repetition, contrast, parallelism, personal elements, profound spirituality, and doctrine.[3]Historically speaking, it is very possible that the Gospel of John was attached to the epistle as it was sent out to the addressees. I John was to be read as an introduction or commentary on the teachings of the Gospel. John Ebrard writes:		This coherence has been considered even more evident than that which exists between Luke and Acts. Such a fact has led some to believe that I John served as preface or dedicatory epistle to the Gospel of John, for both Books are characterized by repetition, contrast, parallelism, personal elements, profound spirituality, and doctrine.[3]Historically speaking, it is very possible that the Gospel of John was attached to the epistle as it was sent out to the addressees. I John was to be read as an introduction or commentary on the teachings of the Gospel. John Ebrard writes:

	:It [1 John\|I John] bears the stamp of a preface or dedicatory epistle. The Apostle addresses himself to specific readers, and holds communion, person to person, with them, in that we mark the essence of the epistle; but he does this on occasion of another communication, to which this is attached, and to which it refers; and therefore, in its form, it is no epistle, no simple and direct substitute of oral speech, but an address uttered on occasion of the reading of another and different communication.[4]		:It [[1 John\|I John]] bears the stamp of a preface or dedicatory epistle. The Apostle addresses himself to specific readers, and holds communion, person to person, with them, in that we mark the essence of the epistle; but he does this on occasion of another communication, to which this is attached, and to which it refers; and therefore, in its form, it is no epistle, no simple and direct substitute of oral speech, but an address uttered on occasion of the reading of another and different communication.[4]

	The exhortations contained in I John were uttered by the Apostle on occasion of the contents contained in the Gospel. Having understood the principles of Christians fellowship promulgated in the Epistle, the reader could proceed to understand the entire basis of his fellowship, the life and work of Jesus Christ as promulgated in the Gospel.		The exhortations contained in I John were uttered by the Apostle on occasion of the contents contained in the Gospel. Having understood the principles of Christians fellowship promulgated in the Epistle, the reader could proceed to understand the entire basis of his fellowship, the life and work of Jesus Christ as promulgated in the Gospel.

Textus Receptus Bible: /* Historical Analysis */

2011-01-19T21:11:02Z

Historical Analysis

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:11, 19 January 2011
Line 44:		Line 44:
	==Historical Analysis==		==Historical Analysis==

	The epistle of I John was probably written late in the first century (ca. 90) from Ephesus by none other than the Apostle John. The intended audience is not exactly clear; however, the lack of personal references suggests that it was written to Christians all across Asia Minor. The same can be said for John's Gospel which was also written from Ephesus in the same general time period (ca. 85-90).It is interesting to note the literary coherence that exists between these two separate New Testament writings. The well-known Greek scholar, A.T. Robertson, once wrote, "in the whole of the First Epistle [1 John\|I John] there is hardly a single thought that is not found in the Gospel [John]."[2]This coherence has been considered even more evident than that which exists between Luke and Acts. Such a fact has led some to believe that I John served as preface or dedicatory epistle to the Gospel of John, for both Books are characterized by repetition, contrast, parallelism, personal elements, profound spirituality, and doctrine.[3]Historically speaking, it is very possible that the Gospel of John was attached to the epistle as it was sent out to the addressees. I John was to be read as an introduction or commentary on the teachings of the Gospel. John Ebrard writes:		The epistle of [[1 John\|I John]] was probably written late in the first century (ca. 90) from Ephesus by none other than the [[St. John the Apostle\|Apostle John]]. The intended audience is not exactly clear; however, the lack of personal references suggests that it was written to Christians all across Asia Minor. The same can be said for [[Gospel of John\|John's Gospel]] which was also written from Ephesus in the same general time period (ca. [[85 AD\|85]]-[[90 AD\|90]]).It is interesting to note the literary coherence that exists between these two separate [[New Testament]] writings. The well-known Greek scholar, A.T. Robertson, once wrote,

			:"in the whole of the First Epistle [[1 John\|I John]] there is hardly a single thought that is not found in the Gospel [John]."[2]

			This coherence has been considered even more evident than that which exists between Luke and Acts. Such a fact has led some to believe that I John served as preface or dedicatory epistle to the Gospel of John, for both Books are characterized by repetition, contrast, parallelism, personal elements, profound spirituality, and doctrine.[3]Historically speaking, it is very possible that the Gospel of John was attached to the epistle as it was sent out to the addressees. I John was to be read as an introduction or commentary on the teachings of the Gospel. John Ebrard writes:

			:It [1 John\|I John] bears the stamp of a preface or dedicatory epistle. The Apostle addresses himself to specific readers, and holds communion, person to person, with them, in that we mark the essence of the epistle; but he does this on occasion of another communication, to which this is attached, and to which it refers; and therefore, in its form, it is no epistle, no simple and direct substitute of oral speech, but an address uttered on occasion of the reading of another and different communication.[4]

	It [1 John\|I John] bears the stamp of a preface or dedicatory epistle. The Apostle addresses himself to specific readers, and holds communion, person to person, with them, in that we mark the essence of the epistle; but he does this on occasion of another communication, to which this is attached, and to which it refers; and therefore, in its form, it is no epistle, no simple and direct substitute of oral speech, but an address uttered on occasion of the reading of another and different communication.[4]
	The exhortations contained in I John were uttered by the Apostle on occasion of the contents contained in the Gospel. Having understood the principles of Christians fellowship promulgated in the Epistle, the reader could proceed to understand the entire basis of his fellowship, the life and work of Jesus Christ as promulgated in the Gospel.		The exhortations contained in I John were uttered by the Apostle on occasion of the contents contained in the Gospel. Having understood the principles of Christians fellowship promulgated in the Epistle, the reader could proceed to understand the entire basis of his fellowship, the life and work of Jesus Christ as promulgated in the Gospel.

Line 57:		Line 62:
	The seeds of the Gnostic heresy seem to be before John's mind in his first epistle; nine times he gives tests for knowing truth in conjunction with the verb ginwskw (to know).[9]This being said, the Johannine Comma would have constituted an integral component of the case the Apostle made against the false teachings of the Gnostics, especially with regard to the nature of Christ. Robertson notes that John's Gospel was written to prove the deity of Christ, assuming his humanity, while I John was written to prove the humanity of Christ, assuming his deity.[10]He goes on to say, "Certainly both ideas appear in both books."[11]If these notions are true, then the Comma is important to John's polemic. Jesus Christ, the human Son of God, is the eternal, living Word (cf. [[John 1:1]]).The Word, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, bears witness to "he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ" ([[1 John 5:6\|I John 5:6]]).This assertion would have flown right into the face of Gnosticism.		The seeds of the Gnostic heresy seem to be before John's mind in his first epistle; nine times he gives tests for knowing truth in conjunction with the verb ginwskw (to know).[9]This being said, the Johannine Comma would have constituted an integral component of the case the Apostle made against the false teachings of the Gnostics, especially with regard to the nature of Christ. Robertson notes that John's Gospel was written to prove the deity of Christ, assuming his humanity, while I John was written to prove the humanity of Christ, assuming his deity.[10]He goes on to say, "Certainly both ideas appear in both books."[11]If these notions are true, then the Comma is important to John's polemic. Jesus Christ, the human Son of God, is the eternal, living Word (cf. [[John 1:1]]).The Word, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, bears witness to "he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ" ([[1 John 5:6\|I John 5:6]]).This assertion would have flown right into the face of Gnosticism.

	On the flip side of the coin, the Gnostics would have completely disregarded the truth promulgated in the [[Johannine Comma]]. In fact, they may have excised it from the text in the same way that Marcion took a butcher knife to the New Testament in the second century. Also, the Arian heresy, which taught that Jesus was not God but a created being, grew out of Gnosticism. In fact, it was widespread in the Church during the third and fourth centuries. Not long after the Council of Nicea ([[325 AD\|A.D. 325]]), an ecumenical council that denounced Arianism, "the whole world woke from a deep slumber and discovered that it had become Arian."[12]Perhaps the prevalent influences of these heresies were responsible for the text falling out of many manuscripts and versions of the [[New Testament]]. This hypothesis is at least as plausible as competing theories which suppose that someone added the verses to combat heretical teaching.		On the flip side of the coin, the Gnostics would have completely disregarded the truth promulgated in the [[Johannine Comma]]. In fact, they may have excised it from the text in the same way that Marcion took a butcher knife to the New Testament in the second century. Also, the Arian heresy, which taught that Jesus was not God but a created being, grew out of Gnosticism. In fact, it was widespread in the Church during the third and fourth centuries. Not long after the Council of Nicea ([[325 AD\|A.D. 325]]), an ecumenical council that denounced Arianism, "the whole world woke from a deep slumber and discovered that it had become Arian."[12]Perhaps the prevalent influences of these heresies were responsible for the text falling out of many manuscripts and versions of the [[New Testament]]. This hypothesis is at least as plausible as competing theories which suppose that someone added the verses to combat heretical teaching.

	==Literary Analysis==		==Literary Analysis==

Textus Receptus Bible: /* AND THESE THREE ARE ONE */

2011-01-19T21:07:39Z

AND THESE THREE ARE ONE

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:07, 19 January 2011
Line 33:		Line 33:
	* 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.		* 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

	Most modern translations ([[~~NASV\|~~NAS]], [[NIV]], [[RSV]], [[NLT]], [[LB]] et. al.), on the other hand, are based upon the Alexandrian text-type tradition (i.e. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus). These versions commonly read as does the [[NIV]]:		Most modern translations ([[NAS]], [[NIV]], [[RSV]], [[NLT]], [[LB]] et. al.), on the other hand, are based upon the Alexandrian text-type tradition (i.e. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus). These versions commonly read as does the [[NIV]]:

	* 7 For there are three that testify: * 8 the spirit, the water, and the blood; and the three are in agreement.		* [[1 John 5:7\|7]] For there are three that testify:
			* [[1 John 5:8\|8]] the spirit, the water, and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

	As anyone can clearly see, there is a substantial omission and consequent mix-up of the text. The modern versions arrive at such a rendering by completely removing verse 7, as found in the AV; then, the phrase "in the earth" is excised and the first phrase of verse 8 (There are three that bear witness) becomes verse 7.Thus, the entire arrangement and sense of the passage is altered.		As anyone can clearly see, there is a substantial omission and consequent mix-up of the text. The modern versions arrive at such a rendering by completely removing verse [[1 John 5:7\|7]], as found in the [[AV]]; then, the phrase "in the earth" is excised and the first phrase of verse [[1 John 5:8\|8]] (There are three that bear witness) becomes verse [[1 John 5:7\|7]].Thus, the entire arrangement and sense of the passage is altered.

	Unfortunately, this altering of the text is often accepted without question. In fact, the issue is rarely, if ever, reasoned through in modern times. Accusations against the passage's authenticity are simply announced as though they were facts. Such conclusions imply that there is no evidence that can be mounted in favor of the Comma's genuineness. This, however, is far from the truth. The purpose of this study is to construct such a case. In doing so, the author will apply ten exegetical tools to the text of I John 5:7-8, gearing them toward the issue of authenticity. The overall purpose of such exegesis is not to prove genuineness although the author would concede to such a conclusion. Rather, the evidence will show that a case for authenticity deserves a hearing as much, if not more than a case for spuriousness. The issue, in other words, is not settled as most critical commentators would assert; there are no foregone conclusions. After all, the burden of proof lies with the accuser whose responsibility it is to prove that the text is an emendation. The exegesis that follows will at the very least cast a shadow of doubt on the accusation itself therefore precluding its ability to be proven.<sup>[1]</sup> May God Almighty guide this quest which seeks, above all, to magnify and establish his perfectly preserved Word. <sup>[]</sup>		Unfortunately, this altering of the text is often accepted without question. In fact, the issue is rarely, if ever, reasoned through in modern times. Accusations against the passage's authenticity are simply announced as though they were facts. Such conclusions imply that there is no evidence that can be mounted in favor of the Comma's genuineness. This, however, is far from the truth. The purpose of this study is to construct such a case. In doing so, the author will apply ten exegetical tools to the text of [[1 John 5:7\|I John 5:7]]-[[1 John 5:8\|8]], gearing them toward the issue of authenticity. The overall purpose of such [[Exegesis\|exegesis]] is not to prove genuineness although the author would concede to such a conclusion. Rather, the evidence will show that a case for authenticity deserves a hearing as much, if not more than a case for spuriousness. The issue, in other words, is not settled as most critical commentators would assert; there are no foregone conclusions. After all, the burden of proof lies with the accuser whose responsibility it is to prove that the text is an emendation. The [[Exegesis\|exegesis]] that follows will at the very least cast a shadow of doubt on the accusation itself therefore precluding its ability to be proven.<sup>[1]</sup> May God Almighty guide this quest which seeks, above all, to magnify and establish his perfectly preserved Word. <sup>[2]</sup>

	==Historical Analysis==		==Historical Analysis==

Textus Receptus Bible: /* AND THESE THREE ARE ONE */

2011-01-19T21:04:16Z

AND THESE THREE ARE ONE

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:04, 19 January 2011
Line 33:		Line 33:
	* 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.		* 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

	Most modern translations ([[NAS]], [[NIV]], [[RSV]], [[NLT]], [[LB]] et. al.), on the other hand, are based upon the Alexandrian text-type tradition (i.e. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus). These versions commonly read as does the [[NIV]]:		Most modern translations ([[NASV\|NAS]], [[NIV]], [[RSV]], [[NLT]], [[LB]] et. al.), on the other hand, are based upon the Alexandrian text-type tradition (i.e. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus). These versions commonly read as does the [[NIV]]:

	* 7 For there are three that testify: * 8 the spirit, the water, and the blood; and the three are in agreement.		* 7 For there are three that testify: * 8 the spirit, the water, and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

Textus Receptus Bible at 21:03, 19 January 2011

2011-01-19T21:03:49Z

Show changes

Nick: /* Footnotes */

2009-09-07T13:39:15Z

Footnotes

Show changes