The following endorsement of John Candlish (1806-1873) is attributed to Charles Spurgeon: "A man hardly needs anything beyond Candlish. He is devout, candid, prudent and forcible." Candlish's massive two-volume commentary on 1 John is one of the go-to commentaries on the book. In lecture XXXVIII, "The Three Witnesses and their Agreement," Candlish quotes 1 John v. 6 and 8 with the following footnote:
I acquiesce of course in the rejection of the 7th verse, and of the words "in earth" in the 8th verse, as not in the original. I need not argue the point, for it is now all but universally admitted by intelligent critics.
The text of his commentary (including this footnote) can be found online (link to vol. 2, p. 200)
Meanwhile, his contemporary, James Morgan (1799-1873), has the following comment in his own lectures (which came after Candlish's):
Doubts have long been entertained respecting the authenticity of this verse. It is wanting in many of the early Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. And we must wait for farther light, before we rest in its inspiration.
(link to Lecture XLIII, p. 426)
Writing shortly after Morgan and Candlish, J.J. Lias, The First Epistle of St. John with Exposition and Homiletical Treatment (1887):
The spuriousness of ver. 7 is a fact which, in the present stage of textual criticism, can hardly be said to admit of dispute. A brief summary of the evidence is all that need be offered here. For a fuller statement the reader is referred to those works on New Testament criticism designed for the use of scholars. Especially will the latest view of the critical evidence be found in Professor Westcott's Commentary.
(p. 379, with extended arguments for and against following)
W. Graham, The Spirit of Love, or a Practical & Exegetical Commentary on 1 John (1857) argues as follows:
4thly. The three Witnesses are mentioned, in the seventh and eighth verses, thus, " For there are three that bear record (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one ; and there are three that bear witness in earth, εν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. Καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἕν τῇ γῇ) "the Spirit, and the water, and the blood ; and these three agree in one." The words included in the parenthesis form the celebrated text of the heavenly witnesses which has been the subject of such fierce and bitter discussion. 1 do not intend to give a statement of the argument on either side, but having read all I could get at on the subject, both in English and German, I may be permitted to state simply my convictions. (1) Nothing can be proved out of the internal evidence either for or against its genuineness. The passage seems to be full and perfect without these words, and yet, when inserted, the meaning is scriptural and apostolical. The apostle might have written them, for they contain nothing which cannot be proved from other passages of sacred Scripture, and therefore I altogether disagree with the dogmatism and presumption of Lücke, who says, " Either these words are spurious, and the rest of the epistle a genuine production of John, or they are genuine, and the epistle belongs to a much later period." (2) There is not sufficient ground for retaining these words in the sacred text. The evidence, so far as it is known or examined, is entirely against their genuineness, and therefore our jealous veneration for the word of God should make us reject them, at least until new confirmatory evidence be produced.
(pp. 323-4)
John Stock (apparently died prior to 1865) wrote an exposition on 1 John (apparently from 1861-64). When he came to 1 John 7-8, he states: "It is admitted, as to a portion of the verses before us, that many manuscripts have it not; yet others have; and most learned divines have affirmed that the argument was in favour of the version we have in our testaments." (link to p. 421) He builds up to this admission with two paragraphs about how confident he is (and his readers should be) in the quality of the English text. And after his admission, he says that whether the verse is "rejected, or retained" it "does not in the least degree affect the blessed doctrine of the Trinity in Unity...."
Samuel Pierce (1746-1829) provided a two volume commentary set of sermons on 1 John. His Sermon LXXIX and LXXX discuss the text of 1 John 5:7, while his Sermon LXXX discusses the text of 1 John 5:8 including the "in earth" phrase. Unlike Morgan and Candlish in the next generation, Pierce seems convinced of the authenticity of the verse, despite his awareness of challenges to it. His arguments, however, do not reflect much understanding of the issues. For example, he argues:
And the series of the context and scope of the place do necessarily require this verse. For the words of the following verse, And there are three in earth, cannot have a right construction, but upon supposition that there are Three also that bear record in heaven, with which these three in earth are connected by the conjunctive particle and.
However, of course, the words "and there are three in earth" are also part of the interpolation.
My overall point is this. At the start of the 19th century, there was a sincere belief that textual criticism vindicated the Johannine Comma. However, by the end of the 19th century, it was clear that textual criticism had conclusively demonstrated that the Johannine Comma is an interpolation.
No comments:
Post a Comment