CHAPTER XXXI.
 
 

Dissertation on 1 John v. 7.

SECT. I.

Previous remarks on this subject:

The controversy relative to 1 John v. 7. has rendered this pasage so celebrated, and at the same time has rendered so much benefit to biblical criticism, by being the cause, that Greek manuscripts, ancient versions and editions, have been examined with greater accuracy, than they otherwise would have been, that the reader would hardly excuse me, if I passed over this subject in total silence. But as this controversy is so very extensive, and the limits of the present work will not permit me to go over the whole ground, and examine every thing, which has been said on both sides of the question, I shall argue chiefly from the premises, which the most learned, and likewise the most candid advocate of 1 John v. 7. has admitted, and proved. But though we agree in the premises,our conclusions are totally different.

In the year 1750, when I published the first edition of this Introduction, the opinion, that 1 John v. 7. was spurious, did not so generally prevail, as it does at present: and my defence of this opinion, though it belongs only to the province of the critic, did not fail to procure me enemies, who regarded me as a heretic, in spite of the most solemn protestations, that, though I believed the passage to be spurious, I did not doubt the doctrine contained in it, which may be proved, and in a much better manner, from other passages of the New Testament. That I may not appear to conceal the publications, which have been directed either wholly, or partly, against me, I will enumerate the several defences of 1 John v. 7. which have appeared since the period above mentioned.

The first is a thesis written for a public disputation by Dr. Semler at Halle in 1751, entitled 'Vindiciae plurium praecipuarum lectionum codicis Graeci Novi Testamenti, adversus Whistonum, atque ab eo latas leges criticas.' This tract eminently distinguishes itself from the rest by its profound learning, and great moderation. It would be superfluous to make any reply to it at present, because the learned author himself, who soon after altered his opinion, not only confuted all the arguments which had been used in favour of 1 John v. 7., but wrote the most important work, which we have on this subject.

The next defence of 1 John v. 7. was written by Mr. I. E. Wagner, in 1752, and entitled, 'Integritas commatis septimi capitis quinti primae Joannis epistolae ab impugnationibus novatoris cujusdam denuo vindicata.' This treatise was directed particularly against me, whom the author meant by his 'novator quidam.' But with such an adversary as Mr. Wagner I never could persuade myself to enter into any controversy.

After a lapse of above thirty years, the learned Knittel undertook another defence of the disputed passage in his 'New Criticisms on 1 John v. 7.' printed at Brunswick, in 1785. This is a valuable work, and much useful information may be derived from it: but in the proof of the principal point the author has totally failed. {1}

In the same year Mr. Travis published in London his 'Letters to Gibbon:' and in the year following Mr. Stresow printed at Hamburgh his 'Open avowal of the doctrine of the Trinity as delivered in 1 John v. 7.' But both of these publications {2} betrayed the utmost partiality and ignorance.

I must now mention what has been written during the same interval on the other side of the question, especially since so many new authorities have been produced against the disputed passage, that its spuriousness is still more strongly confirmed, than it was fifty years ago.

In the first place must be mentioned Wetstein's Note to 1 John v. 7. which contains a very copious dissertation on this passage. In particular, he has quoted a much greater number of Greek manuscripts than any former critic: and he was the first who produced the evidence of the Philoxenian Syriac version, from which it appeared that the passage was no more contained in this version, than in the old Syriac. Soon after the publication of Wetstein's Greek Testament, several Letters appeared on this subject in the Journal Britannique {3}, which discovered great learning and penetration, but were written, for the most part, in rather too ludicrous a tone for serious criticism. In these letters were particularly exposed, the ridiculous and false pretence of Amelote, that the disputed passage was contained in a Vatican manuscript, and the absurd inference which some persons had deduced from Wetstein's correction of an erratum relative to the three Lectionaries belonging to Cesar de Missy, this correction having been converted into an aknowledgement, that the passage was contained in one of these three Lectionaries. The latest publication on this side of the question is that of Dr. Semler, entitled, 'Historical and critical collections, relative to what are called the proof passages in dogmatice theology. Vol. I. on 1 John v. 7.' In this work the learned author has represented in so clear and comprehensive a manner all that can be said on both sides, that every man, who reads it with impartiality, must perceive that the passage is no longer defensible.

At present therefore it is unnecessary to enter at large into this controversy; and consequently I shall do nothing more than attempt to convince those readers, who have either not sufficient leisure or not sufficient inclination to enter into deep critical inquiries, of the spuriousness of 1 John v. 7., by arguing from the premises, which Bengel the most learned writer in its defence has granted and proved. At the same time, I shall subjoin in notes an account of such authorities, as have been discovered since Bengel's time, in support of his positions: and shall likewise add in a separate section an additional argument against 1 John v. 7. which may be drawn from the history of the Alogi.

That the reader may clearly comprehend what is the subject of debate, which appears not to have been understood even by some of those, who have engaged in the controversy, I will here represent 1 John v. 7, 8. as the passage stands in our common printed editions, and inclose in brackets those words which are wanting in the Greek manuscripts. 'Oti treis eisin oi marturountes [en to ourano, o Pater, o Logos, kai to Agion Pneuma kai otoi oi treis en eisin. Kai treis eisin oi marturountes en te ge] to pneuma, kai to udor, kai to aima kai oi treis eis to en eisi. The words which are inclosed between brackets I maintain are spurious, and assert that this text as, it proceeded from the pen of St. John, ran thus. 'Oti treis eisin marturountes, to pneuma, kai to udor, kai to aima kai oi treis eis to en eisi.

From this representation it appears, that those arguments are wholly ungrounded, which are drawn from the connexion between the 7th and 8th verses. It has been objected namely,

1) --- That, if the seventh verse be omitted, the words en te ge in the eighth verse have nothing, to which they can be opposed, that the antithesis, between the earthly, and the heavenly witnesses is destroyed, and consequently that the context does not permit the omission of the seventh verse. Now this argument presupposes, that the words en te ge are genuine, whereas they make a part of the controverted passage, and are themselves as spurious as the words en to ourano.

2) --- That the eighth verse begins with kai, whence it is inferred, that beside the witnesses mentioned in this verse, other witnesses must have been mentioned immediately before. Now the same answer may be given to this argument as to the preceding, for kai at the beginning of ver. 8. is again a part of the controverted passage. And if it were not, the argument would be of no value, since a conjunction copulative, as well as a causal conjunction, may connect the 8th verse with the 6th, without any reference to other witnesses. This is really the case in the old Syriac version, and in the Epernian Arabic version, which was made from the Syriac. These two versions express: 'The Spirit beareth witness, for the Spirit is truth: and there are three, that bear witness, the spirit, the water, and the blood.'
 
 
 
 
 
 

Footnotes to Sect. I.
 
 

{1} --- See my review of this work in the Neue Orientalische Bibliothek, No. 32.]

{2} --- Whoever wishes for further information about them may consult what I have said in the Orientalische Bibliothek.

{3} --- Tom. VIII. p. 194. 274. T. IX. p. 44. 290. T. X. 127. T. XI. 66. T. XV. p. 148. 151.