Furthermore, Minuscule 61 provides strong evidence that 1 John 5:7 existed in the Old Syriac text, which predates Jerome by quite a bit. Minuscule 61 is one the Greek manuscripts that contains 1 John 5:7 as it stands in an
Authorized Version (1611) (Palmer,
First Epistle of John, pg. 21). It is usually thought of by New Testament critics to
"have been written between 1519 and 1522" (Ruckman,
I John 5:7, pg. 6). Indeed, it certainly existed at that time, since,
"it belonged originally to one Froy, a Franciscan friar" (Dobbin,
Codex Montfortianus, pg. 6); and this same
"Froy went on to leave the Franciscan order in the early 1520’s...and was eventually martyred, in Portugal, in 1531." (Snapp, Jr., "Alexandrinus vs. Montfortianus"). Thus, Minuscule 61 cannot be shown to have originated after the 1520s. The common story about this manuscript given by the
'scholars' is that it was
made to order between 1519 and 1522 as a response to Erasmus' first edition of his Greek New Testament (later known as the
"Textus Receptus", the Received Text) omitting 1 John 5:7, with Erasmus demanding to see a Greek manuscript with 1 John 5:7 in it so that he could put it in his text. Minuscule 61 is usually held up as the manufactured manuscript made just for Erasmus in the early 1520s.
However, the conventional story doesn't hold weight. Professor John D. Michaelis, after examining Minuscule 61,
commented about it:
I have noted three passages in the Gospel of St. Mark [in Minuscule 61—J.A.], which perfectly coincide with the Syriac version.
(Michaelis, Intro. to the New Testament, pg. 286).*
"The Syriac version"? But, the Syriac New Testament wasn't even known to Europe
UNTIL 1555 through Syrian priest Moses Mardin:
Widmanstadt conducted Moses to Vienna; and presented him to Ferdinand, who at once consented to bear the expense of printing the Syriac Testament, paying Moses a salary to superintend the work; Widmanstadt rendering such assistance as his public duties permitted. The artist, Caspar Crapht, engraved in steel the punches for striking the matrices, a beautiful font of type was cast in tin, and Michael Cymbermann (or Zimmerman) was the printer. The Gospels were struck off on May 18, 1555, the Pauline Epistles July 18, the Acts August 14, and the book was completed September 27; being the Editio Princeps of the entire Syriac New Testament, excepting the Apocalypse, II. Peter, II. and III. John, and Jude.
Thus from two distinct communities, in Lebanon and Mardin, came the manuscripts upon whose authority was given to the world the first printed edition of the Syriac Testament...the book at last was printed, and came into the hands of scholars, and since then has never been lost sight of among the learned.
(Murdock, Syriac New Testament, pg. xiv).
This presents an interesting conundrum—how could Minuscule 61 have been manufactured, or made to order for Erasmus in, say, 1520, if it matches peculiar readings in the Old Syriac version (showing it is a translation from it), and
the Old Syriac wouldn't be known or read by scholars in Europe for another THIRTY-FIVE YEARS???
There are two great implications from the above facts:
1. Minuscule 61 must have been written long before A.D. 1520.
2. 1 John 5:7 in the
A.V. 1611 existed in the
Old Syriac text as reflected in Minuscule 61's translation of it!!!
And, the Old Syriac text was translated back in
A.D. 170, over 200 years before Jerome supposedly ADDED 1 John 5:7 into the Latin Vulgate (according to Newton).
As E.W. Bullinger states:
Of these [i.e. Ancient Versions—J.A.], the Aramaic (or Syriac), i.e. the Peshitto, is the most important, ranking as superior in authority to the oldest Greek manuscripts, and dating from as early as A.D. 170.
(Bullinger, Companion Bible, pg. 136 of "Appendixes").
It is commonly objected, however, by modern scholarship that the Syriac text was actually translated in the fifth century, not in the second. But this is easily refuted by the fact that the different denominations of the Syrian church, which split up in the fifth century, have the same Syriac translation; proving it predates the fifth century. Otherwise, if the translation was done in the fifth century by
one of the schisms of the Syrian church, THE OTHER DENOMINATIONS WOULD HAVE REJECTED IT out of spite:
Though the Syrian Church was divided by the Third and Fourth General Councils in the fifth century, into three, and eventually into yet more, hostile communions, which have lasted for 1,400 years with all their bitter controversies, yet the same version is read to-day in the rival churches. Their manuscripts have flowed into the libraries of the West, "yet they all exhibit a text in every important respect the same."
(Bullinger, Companion Bible, pg. 136 of "Appendixes").
Furthermore, 1 John 5:7 in the
A.V. 1611 is also found in the
Old Latin Bible, which also predates Jerome's
Vulgate. Namely, 1 John 5:7 is found in the only three surviving copies of 1 John 5; manuscripts l (7th century), r (7th century), and m (5th century) (Nestle & Aland,
Novum Testamentum Graece, pgs. 81, 725; and "Manuscripts of the Old Latin"). These all bear witness to the Old Latin translation done before
A.D. 180 and
possibly even as far back as A.D. 100:
...the original translation into Latin was made in the second century, and perhaps early in that century...
(Kenyon, Our Bible, pg. 169).
Tertullian speaks of a complete Latin Bible which was circulating all over North Africa as far back as 190, and this Bible was from manuscripts far superior to anything Rome had in A.D. 350.
(Ruckman, Manuscript Evidence, pg. 86).
The oft-repeated claim that the Johannine Comma [1 John 5:7 in the A.V. 1611—J.A.] is a Latin Vulgate reading, is misleading, since it is known firstly as an Old Latin reading, which was likely transmitted by (not necessarily derived from) Vulgate MSS [manuscripts—J.A.].
(Maynard, The Debate Over 1 John 5,7-8, pg. 17).
Even the greatly esteemed
text critic scholar Constantin von Tischendorf (who discovered Sinaiticus, one of the two great pearls of the modern version scholars) stated the Old Latin text is early from the second century!
The text of the old Italic is substantially that which Tertullian, about the end of the second century, and the Latin translator of Irenaeus still earlier, made use of.
(Tischendorf, When were our Gospels Written?, pg. 127).
Therefore, Isaac Newton's entire theory of Jerome first adding 1 John 5:7 to the Bible in the fourth century, is absolutely false—1 John 5:7 according to Jerome himself was a faithful translation of Greek manuscripts he had, it pre-dated Jerome's Vulgate in the Old Latin Bible of A.D. 180, and it pre-dated the Vulgate in the Old Syriac of A.D. 170. And contrary to Newton's statement, this shows that 1 John 5:7 as it stands in a
King James Bible (1611) DID EXIST in the
"ancient versions". And we haven't even gotten past
the third page in Newton's attack on the
A.V. 1611.
Moving on, Newton turns his attention to one of the best proofs that 1 John 5:7 in the
A.V. 1611 is authentic—Cyprian's quotation of it in A.D. 250 (still before Jerome's Vulgate). Cyprian said,
"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."" (Maynard,
The Debate Over 1 John 5,7-8, pg. 37).** Newton proves against some skeptics who doubt that Cyprian even said this quote with the following words:
The Socinians [i.e. Unitarians in modern terms—J.A.] here deal too injuriously with Cyprian, while they would have this place corrupted [i.e. not genuine—J.A.]: for Cyprian in another place repeats almost the same thing. "If," saith he, ["one baptized among heretics] be made the temple of God, tell me, I pray, of what God? If of the Holy Ghost, since these Three are One, how can the Holy Ghost be reconciled to him who is the enemy of either the Father or the Son?" These places of Cyprian being, in my opinion, genuine...
(Newton, An Historical Account, pgs. 3-4).***
Isaac Newton then gives a standard objection to 1 John 5:7 being genuine in the
King James Bible; which is, if it was scripture, why didn't the Trinitarian Church Fathers appeal to it in the Trinitarian controversies (e.g. at the Council of Nicea [A.D. 325])?
For had it been in Cyprian's Bible, the Latines of the next age, when all the world was engaged in disputing about the Trinity, and all arguments that could be thought of were diligently sought out, and daily brought upon the stage, could have never been ignorant of a text, which in our age, now the dispute is over, is chiefly insisted upon.
(Newton, An Historical Account, pg. 4).
However, there is a legitimate reason why Trinitarians wouldn't want to quote 1 John 5:7, and it has to do with the actual meaning of that verse itself in context. As one Trinitarian admits:
Even during the Arian controversies of the 4th century, Trinitarians may have supposed the Comma would give ammunition to those who claimed the Godhead is "one" only in terms of agreement, not essence. Given that 1 John 5:8 demonstrates the oneness of the Spirit, water and the blood only in terms of agreement, not essence, drawing attention to the Comma and its context could have undermined the Trinitarian view of the Godhead.
("Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7)", sec. 7.2).
That this is the correct interpretation of 1 John 5:7 in the
A.V. 1611 will be fully and irrefutably demonstrated at the end of this article. Another good reason why 1 John 5:7 wouldn't be brought up during the Arian controversy is because it added that the Holy Spirit was
"one" with the Father and the Son; and the Holy Spirit was not the subject of the controversy, but rather the Deity of Christ alone. Quoting 1 John 5:7 in such controversy could have muddied up the waters for the Trinitarians and get them bogged down as to whether or not the Holy Spirit was fully God (which wasn't their argument).
flamingswordkjv.blogspot.com