SECTION VI.

 
 

In what manner 1 John v. 7. was first introduced into the Latin version, and afterwards into our printed editions of the Greek Testament.

When it has been proved by satisfactory evidence, that a passage is spurious, it is wholly unnecessary to show at what time, or in what manner, the passage was first intorduced. There are many readings in our common printed text, which at present are universally allowed to be false, though we cannot ascertain by what copyist they were first written, or what particular cause has given them birth. In such cases we must be satisfied with probable conjecture; for historical evidence is seldom to be expected, since interpolations are in general clandestine facts, and are very rarely recorded. But since the advocates of 1 John v. 7. contend, that this passage would not have been contained in the Latin version, unless it had been contained likewise in the Greek, I will endeavour to shew in what manner it was first introduced into the Latin version.

The simple fact, that it had its origin in the Latin, is undisputable, since it is conatined in no ancient Greek manuscript, and in no other version {1}. And the cause, which gave it birth, was probably the following. It appears from the third section of this chapter, that the African fathers interpreted 1 John v. .7, 8. mystically, and considered "the spirit, the water, and the blood," as denoting the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Further it must be remarked, that the African fathers, were the first, who discovered 1 John v. 7. in the Latin version. The combination of these two facts leads to the following probable conclusion: that the spiritual interpretation of 1 John v. 8. was written in the margin of one or more Latin manuscripts {2}, and that, in order to distinguish the terrestrial from the celestial meaning, the words "in terra were added as a marginal gloss, in reference to "testimonium dant" in the eighth verse, by which means both the literal and the spiritual meaning were rendered perfect. According to this representation, the text and the margin stood thus
 
 

When a copy of this kind fell into the hands of ignorant transcribers, who were making new transcripts of the Latin Bible, they imagined, that what was written in the margin was a part of the text, which had been omitted by mistake; consequently they inserted it in the text of the manuscript, which they themselves were writing. But some of them inserted the marginal reading before the text, of which it was the interpretation, others after it: and this is the reason why the controverted passage has no fixed place in the Latin manuscripts, the heavely witnesses sometimes preceding, sometimes following the earthly witnesses {3}.

In this manner the passage having gained admittance into one or more Latin manuscripts written in Africa, it had the undeserved good fortune to be quoted in the Confession of Faith, presented at the end of the fifth century by the African bishops to Hunerich, king of the Vandals {4}. And as these bishops became martyrs, and were said even to have performed a miracle {5}, the passage in consequence of its having been quoted in their Confession, not only acquired celebrity, but was stamped with authority. Hence other Latin transcribers, especially they, who lived in Africa, were induced to follow the example of those, who transferred the passage from the margin to the text. And, as the Carthaginian and Roman churches were closely allied, this example soon spread itself to the transcribers, who lived in Italy. It must be observed however, that the example was not imitated universally: for Facundus, who lived in the sixth century, did not find the passage in his manuscript of the Latin version. This appears. This appears from the circumstance, that he proves the doctrine of the Trinity by a mystical interpretation of the eighth verse: which he certainly would not have done, if the seventh verse had been contained in his manuscript, because in this verse the doctrine, which he intended to prove, is literally and directly asserted. After the sixth century, the whole Latin church was involved in ignorance and barbarism: all critical inquiries were at an end: and both spurious and genuine passages were received without distinction. In the middle ages therefore 1 John v. 7. was generally considered throughout the west of Europe, as a part of St. John's first Epistle, without any further questions being asked about it.

At the revival of letters, and the restoration of Greek literature, it was discovered, that, though the passage had gained admittance into the Vulgate, it was not contained in the Greek manuscripts. Accordingly, Erasmus printed his two first editions of the Greek Testament without it: that is, he printed the text of St. John's first Epistle as he found it in Greek manuscripts. This gave great offence to the members of the church of Rome, whose oracle was the Vulgate: and who concluded, from the omission of the passage in the Greek manuscripts, not that it was spurious, but that the Greeks had maleciously erased it. Erasmus however did not think proper to translate the passage from Latin into Greek, and to insert it in his next edition, if a Greek manuscript could be discovered, which contained it. before the publication of his third edition he recieved intelligence, that such a manuscript existed in England, and likewise a transcript from this manuscript of the place in question. From this transcript Erasmus inserted the controverted passage in his third and following editions, "ne cui sit causa calumniandi." From those editions others were copied, and others again from these, till at length 1 John v. 7. became as general in the printed editions of the Greek Testament, as it was in the Latin version {6}.
 
 

Footnotes to Sect. VI.
 
 

{1} --- There is no version, in which so many, and so long interpolations have been made, as in the Latin.

{2} --- Marginal glosses were very common in the Latin manuscripts.

{3} --- In the modern transcripts of the Vulgate, the former arrangement generally prevails: but Bengel preferred the latter.

{4} --- That this quotation is no argument for the authenticity of the passage, has been shown in the third section of this chapter.

{5} --- It was asserted, that they spake after their tongue were cut out.

{6} --- It has been likewise interpolated in the editions of the Greek Testament, which are used by the Greeks of the present age. In the last century, it was interpolated in the Slavonian, or Russian version: and in the Armenian version, it was interpolated so early as the end of the thirteenth century, in the time of king Haitho, who was strongly attached to the Church of Rome.