The Johaninne Comma
PART 1
The Internal Evidence
The
determination of the integrity of the Greek Vulgate now turns on the decision
of this question, whether those texts relative to the doctrine of the
Incarnation, Redemption, and Trinity, which have been already mentioned, as
impugned by the advocates for a more correct text than exists in our printed
editions, must be considered authentic or spurious.
I have
hitherto labored to no purpose if it is not admitted that I have already laid a
foundation sufficiently broad and deep for maintaining the authenticity of the
contested verses. The negative argument arising in their favor, from the
probability that Eusebius suppressed them in his edition, has been already
stated at large. Some stress may be laid on this extraordinary circumstance,
that the whole of the important interpolations, which are thus conceived to
exist in the Received Text, were contrary to his peculiar notions. If we
conceive them cancelled by him, there is nothing wonderful in the matter at
issue; but if we consider them subsequently interpolated, it is next to
miraculous that they should be so circumstanced. And what must equally excite
astonishment, to a certain degree they are not more opposed to the peculiar
opinions of Eusebius, by whom I conceive they were cancelled, than of the
Catholics, by whom it is conceived they were inserted in the text. When
separated from the sacred context, as they are always in quotation, the
doctrine which they appear most to favor is that of the Sabellians; but this
heresy was as contrary to the tenets of those who conformed to the Catholic as
of those who adhered to the Arian opinions. It thus becomes as improbable that
the former should have inserted, as it is probable the latter suppressed those
verses; and just as probable is it, that both parties might have acquiesced in
their suppression when they were once removed from the text of Scripture. If we
connect this circumstance with that previously advanced, that Eusebius, the
avowed adversary of the Sabellians, expunged these verses from his text, and
that every manuscript from which they have disappeared is lineally descended
from his edition, every difficulty in which this intricate subject is involved
directly vanishes. The solution of the question lies in this narrow space, that
he expunged them from the text, as opposed to his peculiar opinions: and the
peculiar apprehensions which were indulged of Sabellianism by the orthodox,
prevented them from restoring those verses or citing them in their controversies
with the Arians.
Thus far we
have but attained probability, though clearly of the highest degree, in favor
of the authenticity of these disputed verses. The question before us is,
however, involved in difficulties which still require a solution. In order to
solve these, and to investigate more carefully the claims of those verses to
authenticity, I shall lay them before the reader as they occur in the Greek and
Latin Vulgate; subjoining those various readings, which are supposed to
preserve the genuine text.
(The following verses are then quoted in Greek and in Latin; Acts
20:28; 1 Timothy 3:16; 1 John 5:7-8.)
As the
Byzantine text thus reads, in Act. xx. 28. evkklhsi,an tou/ qeou/, and in I Tim. iii. 16. Qeo.j evfanerw,qh, the Palestine, or Alexandrian, according to M. Griesbach,
reads, in the former place, evkklhsi,an
tou/ kuri,ou, and in the latter, o]j
evfanerw,qh. In 1 John v. 7. the Byzantine and
In proceeding
to estimate the respective merit of these readings, the first attention is due
to the internal evidence. In reasoning from it we work upon solid ground. For
the authenticity of some part of the verses in dispute we have that strong
evidence which arises from universal consent; all manuscripts and translations
supporting some part of the context of the contested passages. In the remaining
parts we are given a choice between two readings, one only of which can be
authentic. And in making our election, we have in the common principles of
plain sense and ordinary language, a certain rule by which we may be directed.
Gross solecisms in the grammatical structure, palpable oversights in the
texture of the sense, cannot be ascribed to the inspired writers. If of any two
given readings one be exposed to such objections, there is but the alternative,
that the other must be authentic.
On applying
this principle to the Palestine Text, in the first instance, it seems to bring
the point in dispute to a speedy determination. The reading which it proposes
in the disputed texts is not to be reconciled with sense, with grammar, or the
uniform phraseology of the New Testament.
1. In Acts xx.
28, the phrase evkklhsi,an tou/ kuri,ou
is unknown to the language of the Greek Testament, and wholly irreconcilable
with the use of ivdi,ou ai[matoj for ai[matoj
auvtou, in the context, as leading to a false
or absurd meaning. The phrase evkklhsi,an tou/ qeou is that uniformly used by the evangelical writers, and that
used above ten times by
2. In 1 Tim.
iii, 16, the phrase o]j evfanerw,qh is little
reconcilable with sense or grammar. In order to make it Greek, in the sense of
"he who was manifested," it should be ov fanerwqei.j; but this reading
is rejected by the universal consent of manuscripts and translations. The
subjunctive article o]j is indeed used indefinitely;
but it is then put for o]j a]n, o]j eva.n, o[jij a]n, wa/j o[jij; as in this state it is synonymous with whoever, whosoever, we have only to put this term
into the letter of the text, in order to discover that it reduces the reading
of M. Griesbach and of the Palestine Text to palpable nonsense.
3. In 1 Joh. v. 7, three masculine adjectives, trei/j oi` marturou/ntej are forced into union with
three neuter substantives, to. Pneu/ma(
kai. to. u[dwr( kai. to. ai-ma; a grosser solecism
than can be ascribed to any writer, sacred or profane, And low as the opinion
may be which the admirers of the Corrected Text may hold of the purity of the
style of St. John; it is a grosser solecism than they can fasten on the holy
Evangelist, who, in his context, has made one of these adjectives regularly
agree with its correspondent substantive in the neuter. There seems to be
consequently as little reason for tolerating this text as either of the preceding.
From the
alternative to which the question has been reduced, it might now be inferred,
that the reading of our printed editions, which is supported, in 1 Tim. iii. 16
by the Greek Vulgate, in 1 Joh. v.7 by the Latin Vulgate, and in Act. xx. 28 by
both the Greek and Latin Vulgate, contained the genuine text of Scripture. As
the reading of those passages, however, admits of more than a negative defence;
I proceed to examine how far this testimony of the Eastern and
Directing our
attention in the first place, to the structure of the phrase, the tenor of the
sense and language as fully declares for the received reading, as against the
corrected.
1. In Act. xx.
28. the apostolical phrase, evkklhsi,an tou/ Qeou/, is not only preserved, but its full force consequently
assigned to the epithet ivdi,ou. This
term, as used by the apostle, has an exclusive and emphatic force; an
exclusive, in limiting the sense to "God," the subject of the
assertion;—an emphatic, in evincing the apostle's earnestness in using so
extraordinary an expression. “Feed the Church of God, which he purchased with no
other blood than his own,” is the literal meaning of the phrase; and this meaning is not more
clearly expressed, than we shall see it was required by the object of the
apostle, in writing.
2: In 1 Tim.
iii. 16. there can be little doubt that the "Great Mystery," of which
the apostle speaks, and that whereby some one “was manifested in the flesh,” must be the Incarnation. If we take the account given of this
“mystery” in John i. 1. 14. it marks out “God” as the divine person who “was
manifested.” And putting this term into the letter of the text, it renders the
apostle’s explanation answerable to his purpose and to the solemn mode of his
enunciation. For, as the manifestation of
no person, but the incomprehensible and
divine, can be a mystery, any
“manifestation” of “God,” as “in the flesh,” must be a “Great Mystery.” So far,
the apostle’s phrase is as just as it is sententious.
3. In 1 John v. 7. the manifest rent in the Corrected Text, which
appears from the solecism in the language, is filled up in the Received Text;
and o` path,r( o` lo,goj, being inserted, the masculine adjectives,
trei/j oi` marturou/ntej, are ascribed suitable
substantives; and by the figure attraction, which is so prevalent in Greek,
every objection is removed to the structure of the context. Nor is there thus a
necessary emendation made in the apostle's language alone, but in his meaning.
From viewing
the internal evidence of the disputed texts, let us next consider the
circumstances under which they were delivered; and here, I am wholly deceived,
or the investigation will lead to the ultimate establishment of the same
conclusion.
It is of the
last importance in deciding the present question, to ascertain the subject
which was before the apostles, in delivering themselves on the occasion before
us. Some light arises to direct us in this enquiry from the consideration, that
the words of both apostles were addressed to the Church at
It is further
deserving of remark, that both apostles are expressly engaged on the subject of
those early heresies with which the
In order to determine the question before us, it is still
necessary that we should acquire a precise knowledge of the fundamental tenets
of those heretics whom the apostles opposed.
While these heretics thus denied the Divinity and rendered void
the Incarnation and Redemption of Christ, they seemed not to have erred so
grossly on the doctrine of the Trinity. As they were respectively descended
from the Jews, though their notions were warped by the peculiar opinions of
Simon Magus, they must have derived from both sources
some knowledge of this mystic doctrine. Hence
it is of importance to observe that the Jews expressed their belief in this
doctrine in the identical terms which occur in the suspected passage; "and
the three are one.”
It is likewise observable, that as these notions had descended to the
heretics; the Nicolaitans, in particular, expressed the same belief in similar
language. And the Hebrew Gospel, which was used by the Ebionites, if not by the
Cerinthians, both of which sects were opposed by
From viewing
the state of the subject as before the apostles, let us now consider the manner
in which they have discussed the points at issue between them and the heretics.
The determination of this matter is decisive of the true reading of the
contested passages. With respect to the heretics who were opposed by St. Paul,
as it has been already observed, it was not only a fundamental article of their
creed to deny the divinity of the Logos, and to degrade him into
the order of secondary and angelical existences; but a leading doctrine to deny
that Christ became incarnate and
suffered; otherwise than in appearance, for the redemption of mankind. The
opposition of these notions to the explicit declarations of St. Paul, in
the contested verses, must be directly apparent; and they appositely illustrate
the strong emphasis with which the apostle insists on the Incarnation and Redemption in both passages: "God," he
declares, "was manifested in the flesh;” and "feed the church of God
which he purchased with his own blood.” But what is more immediately to our
purpose, those heretical tenets evince the obligation which was laid on the
apostle to assert the divine nature of our Lord as strenuously as he asserted
his human. This we observe to be as effectually done in the Received Text,
where the term God is expressly introduced; as the contrary is observable in
the Corrected, where that term is superseded by "the Lord," or “he
who was manifested." Of consequence, the circumstances under which those
verses were delivered as fully confirm the reading of the one, as they
invalidate that of the other. The apostle expressly undertakes to warn the
Church against those heretics whose errors he is employed in refuting.
"Therefore watch," he declares to the Ephesian pastors, "and
remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night
and day with tears. To Timothy he declares, "If thou put the brethren in
remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus
Christ.”—"Take heed unto thyself," subjoins the apostle, "and to
thy doctrine; continue in them'"," &c. But if we omit
"God," with the Corrected Text,
These conclusions are further supported by collateral evidence. St.
Ignatius, an auditor of St. John, who impugned the errors of the Nicolaitans
respecting the divinity of the Logos, adopts the identical expressions of St.
Paul in an Epistle addressed to the same church at Ephesus, and insists on the divinity, incarnation, and passion of Christ,
in language the most full and explicit. Had all antiquity been silent on the
subject of these contested verses, which are supported by the most full and
unexceptionable evidence, the single testimony of this apostolical father would
determine the genuine reading beyond controversion.
With respect
to 1 John v. 7,8 it has been already observed, that it was directed against the
peculiar errors of the Nicolaitans and Cerinthians. Of those sects it has been
likewise observed, that they respectively denied that Jesus was "the Son
of God," and "came in the flesh," though they mutually expressed
their belief in a Trinity. Such are the fundamental errors which the apostle
undertakes to refute, while at the same time he inculcates a just notion of the
Trinity, distinguishing the Persons from the substance by opposing trei/j in the masculine to e]n in the neuter.
Against those who denied that
"Jesus was the Son of God," he appeals to the heavenly witnesses; and
against those who denied that he "was come in the flesh," he appeals
to the earthly. For the admission of the one, that the "three,"
including the Word, were "one" God, as clearly evinced the divinity
of Christ, as identifying him with the Father; as "the spirit" which
he yielded up, and "the blood and water" which he shed upon the
cross, evinced his humanity as proving him mortal. And this appeal to the
witnesses is as obvious, as the argument deduced from it is decisive; those who
abjured the Divinity of our Lord, being as naturally confuted by the testimony
of the heavenly witnesses, as those who denied his humanity by the testimony of
the earthly. Viewed with reference to these considerations the apostle's
argument is as full and obvious, as it is clear and decisive; while it is
illustrated by the circumstances under which his epistle was written. But let
us suppose the seventh verse suppressed, and he not only neglects the advantage
which was to be derived from the concession of his opponents, while he sums up
"the witness of men," but the very end of his epistle is frustrated,
as the main proposition is thus left unestablished, that "Jesus is the Son
of God." And though the notions of the heretics on the doctrine of the
Trinity were vague and unsettled, the Church was thus left without any warning
against their peculiar tenets, though the apostle wrote with the express view
of countervailing their errors. Not to insist on the circumstances of the
controversy, the object of the apostle's writing, not less than the tenor of
his sense, consequently require that the disputed passage should be considered
an integral part of his text.
The reader
must be now left to determine how far the internal evidence, supported by the
circumstances of the controversy in which the sacred writers were engaged, may
extend in establishing the authenticity of the disputed verses. As interpolations,
we must find it as difficult to account for their origin, by considering them
the product of chance as design. For assuming the reading of the Corrected Text
to be genuine, is it not next to miraculous that the casual alteration
introduced into the Received Text should produce so extraordinary an effect in
each of the passages, and attended by consequences so various and remote, that
it should amend the solecism of the language, supply the defective sense, and
verify the historical circumstances under which they were written? But how is
the improbability diminished by conceiving them the product of design; while
they appear to be unsuitable to the controversies agitated in the primitive
Church? The early heretics did not subscribe to those parts of the canon in
which they occur; and they did not meet the difficulties of those disputes
which were maintained with the latter. In order to answer the purposes of those
controversies, Christ, in two of the contested passages, should have been
identified with "God," who "was manifested in the flesh,"
and "purchased the Church with his own blood." And instead of
"the Father, Word, and Spirit," the remaining passage should have
read, "the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." Otherwise, the interpolated
passages would have been direct concessions to the Gnostics and Sabellians,
who, in denying the personal difference of the Father and Son, were equally
obnoxious to those avowed adversaries, the Catholics and the Arians. Nor did
the orthodox require these verses for the support of their cause; they had
other passages which would accomplish all that they could effect; and without
their aid, they maintained and established their tenets. Admitting the
possibility of an interpolation, in the three instances, we must be still at a
loss to conceive with what object it could have been attempted.
On taking the reverse of the
question, and supposing the Byzantine text preserves the genuine reading, every
difficulty in the subject under discussion admits of the easiest solution. The
circumstances which induced Eusebius, of
Thus reasoning
on the very grounds chosen by the adversaries of those texts, the question of
their authenticity is easily decided; as far, at least, as respects the
internal evidence. It is now merely necessary, that the testimony of competent
witnesses should be adduced, to corroborate the internal evidence, with
external.
Of the
manuscripts which have been cited on this subject, 1. the
2. The Alexandrian, and all
known manuscripts, except two of the
3. The whole nearly of the
manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate contain 1 Joh. v. 7; which is not found in any
Greek MS. but the Montfort; a manuscript which has been obviously corrected by
the Latin translation.
Of the
Christian fathers who have been quoted on this subject, the following have been
cited in favor of the reading of the Received Text, or Greek Vulgate.
1. On Act. xx.
28. St. Ignatius, in the apostolical age; and Tertullian, near the same period.
At the distance of a century and upwards from those primitive times, St.
Athanasius, St. Basil, St. Epiphanius, St. Ambrose, and St. Chrysostom, deliver
the same testimony. In the following age occur Ibas and Coelestinus; and in the
succeeding, Fulgentius, Ferrandus; and Primasius. In the next age we meet
Antiochus, and Martin I, and in the subsequent, Bede, who is followed, after
some distance of time, by Etherius, OEcumenius, and Theophylact.
To these we may
add some anonymous authorities, whose age is not easily determined.
2. On 1 Tim.
iii. 16 we may quote St. Ignatius; in the apostolical age; and Hippolytus, in the age which succeeded. The next age
presents St. Athanasius, St. Gregory Nyssene, and St. Chrysostom; and the
following age, St. Cyril, of
3. On 1 Joh.
v. 7. we may cite Tertullian in the age next the apostolical, and St. Cyprian
in the subsequent era. In the following age, we may quote Phoebadius, Marcus
Celedensis, and Idatius Clarus; and in the succeeding; age, Eucherius, Victor
Vitensis, and Vigilius Tapsensis. Fulgentius and Cassiodorus occur in the next
age, and Maximus in the subsequent; to whom we might add many others, or indeed
the whole of the Western Church, who after this period generally adopted this
verse in their authorized version.
With respect to 1 Tim. iii 16 and Acts xx 28 it is, I trust,
unnecessary to add another argument in support of their authenticity. Admitting
that. there exists sufficient external evidence to prove that those verses
constituted a part of Scripture; the internal evidence must decide whether we
are to consider them genuine or must reject them as spurious. The point at
issue is thus reduced to a matter of fact on which there is no room for a
second opinion. It has been, I trust, sufficiently shown that the one text is
supported by the testimony of the Eastern Church and the other by that of the
Eastern and Western. The inference is of course obvious, without a formal
deduction.
With respect
to I John v. 7. the case is materially different. If this verse be received, it
must be admitted on the single testimony of the Western Church, as far at least
as respects the external evidence. And though it may seem unwarrantable to set
aside the authority of the Greek Church, and pay exclusive respect to the Latin,
where a question arises on the authenticity of a passage which properly belongs
to the text of the former; yet when the doctrine inculcated in that passage is
taken into account, there may be good reason for giving even a preference to
the Western Church over that of the Eastern. The former was uncorrupted by the
heresy of the Arians, who rejected the doctrine of the passage in question; the
latter was wholly resigned to that heresy for at least forty years, while the
Western Church retained its purity. And while the testimony borne by the latter
on the subject before us, is consistent and full; that borne by the former is
internally defective. It is delivered in language, which has not even the merit
of being grammatically correct; while the testimony of the latter is not only
unexceptionable in itself, but possesses the singular merit of removing the
aforementioned imperfection on being merely turned into Greek and inserted in
the context of the original. Under these circumstances there seems to be little
reasonableness in allowing the Western Church any authority, and denying it, in
this instance, a preference over the Eastern.
But numberless
circumstances conspire to strengthen the authority of the Latin Church in
supporting the authenticity of this passage. The particular Church on whose
testimony principally we receive the disputed verse, is that of Africa. And
even at the first sight, it must be evident, that the most implicit respect is
due to its testimony.
1. In those
great convulsions which agitated the Eastern and Western Churches for eight
years, with scarcely any intermission, and which subjected the sacred text to
the greatest changes through that vast tract of country which extends round the
Levant, from Libya to Illyricum, the African provinces were exposed to the
horrors of persecution but for an inconsiderable period. The Church, of course,
which was established in this region neither required a new supply of sacred
books nor received those which had been revised by Eusebius and St. Jerome, as
removed out of the range of the influence of those ancient fathers.
2. As the
African Church possessed this competency to deliver a pure unsophisticated
testimony on the subject before us; that which it has borne is as explicit as
it is plenary, since it is delivered in a Confession prepared by the whole
church assembled in council. After the African provinces had been overrun by
the Vandals, Hunneric, their king, summoned the bishops of this church and of
the adjacent isles to deliberate on the doctrine inculcated in the disputed
passage. Between three and four hundred prelates attended the Council which met
at Carthage; and Eugenius, as bishop of that see, drew up the Confession of the
orthodox, in which the contested verse is expressly quoted. That a whole church
should thus concur in quoting a verse which was not contained in the received
text is wholly inconceivable; and admitting that 1 John v 7 was thus generally
received, its universal prevalence in that text is only to be accounted for by
supposing it to have existed in it from the beginning.
3. The
testimony which the African church has borne on the subject before us is not
more strongly recommended by the universal consent, than the immemorial
tradition of the evidence which attests the authenticity of the contested
passage. Victor Vitensis and Fulgentius, Marcus Celedensis, St. Cyprian, and
Tertullian, were Africans, and have referred to the verse before us. Of these
witnesses, which follow each other at almost equal intervals, the first is referred
to the age of Eugenius, the last to that nearly of the Apostles. They thus form
a traditionary chain, carrying up the testimony of the African Church until it
loses itself in time immemorial.
4. The
testimony of the African Church, which possesses these strong recommendations,
receives confirmation from the corroborating evidence of other churches, which
were similarly circumstanced. Phoebadius and Eucherius, the latter of whom had
been translated from the Spanish to the Gallican Church, were members of the
latter; and both these churches had been exempt, not less than the African,
from the effects of Dioclesian's persecution. Both those early fathers,
Phoebadius and Eucherius, attest the authenticity of the contested passage; the
testimony of the former is entitled to the greater respect as he boldly
withstood the authority of Hosius whose influence tended to extend the Arian
opinions in the Western world, at the very period in which he cited the
contested passage. In addition to these witnesses we have, in the testimony of
Maximus, the evidence of a person who visited the African Church, and who there
becoming acquainted with the disputed passage wrote a tract for the purpose of
employing it against the Arians. The testimony of these witnesses forms a
valuable accession to that of the African Church.
5. We may
appeal to the testimony of the Greek Church in confirmation of the African
Churches. Not to insist at present on positive testimonies, the disputed verse,
though not supported by the text of the original Greek, is clearly supported by
its context. The latter does not
agree so well with itself, as it does with the testimony of the African Church.
The grammatical structure which is imperfect in itself, directly recovers its
original integrity on being filled up with the passage which is offered on the
testimony of this witness. Thus far the testimony of the Greek Church is
plainly corroborative of that of the Western.
6. In fine, as
Origen and Eusebius have both thought that one church becomes a sufficient
voucher for one even of the sacred books of the Canon; and as Eusebius has
borne the most unqualified evidence to the integrity and purity of the Church
of Africa, we can have no just
grounds for rejecting its testimony on a single verse of Scripture. And when we
consider the weight of the argument arising in favor of this verse from the
internal evidence; how forcibly the subject of it was pressed upon the
attention of St. John; and how amply it is attested by that external evidence
which is antecedent, though deficient in that which is subsequent, to the times
of the apostles, our conviction must rise that this passage is authentic. But
when we add the very obvious solution which this lack of subsequent evidence
receives, from the probability that Eusebius suppressed this passage in the
edition which he revised; and which became the received text of the Church,
which remained in subjection to the Arians for the forty years that succeeded;
I trust nothing further can be lacking to convince any ingenuous mind that 1
John v. 7. really proceeded from St. John the Evangelist.
I shall now
venture to conclude, that the doctrinal integrity of the Greek Vulgate is
established, in the vindication of these passages. It has been my endeavor to
rest it upon its natural basis; the testimony of the two Churches, in the
eastern and western world, in whose keeping the sacred trust was reposed. In
two instances alone, which are of any moment, their testimony is found to vary;
and in these the evidence is not discovered to be contradictory, but defective,
and this merely on one side. To direct us, however, in judging between the
witnesses the internal evidence at once reveals that an error lies on the side
of that testimony which is less full, as it is not consistent when regarded
alone. Hence, on confronting the witnesses, and correcting the defective
testimony by that which is more explicit, every objection to which the former
was originally exposed directly disappears. As this is a result which cannot be
considered accidental, there seems to be no possible mode of accounting for it,
but by supposing, that there was a period when the witnesses agreed in that
testimony which is more full and explicit. However inadequate therefore either
of the witnesses may be considered, when regarded separately, yet when their
testimony is regarded comparatively it is competent to put us in possession of
the truth in all instances, which are of any importance.
It is scarcely
necessary any further to prolong this discussion by specifying the relative
imperfection of those systems, to which the present scheme is opposed. Those of
Dr. Bentley and M. Griesbach are fundamentally defective in sacrificing the
testimony of the Eastern Church for the immense period, during which the Greek
Vulgate has prevailed; that of M. Matthaei is scarcely less exceptionable, in
rejecting the testimony of the Western Church for the still greater period
during which it has been a witness and keeper of Holy Writ.
In
fact, whoever saps the basis on which the integrity of the inspired Word is
properly sustained, must necessarily build on a foundation of sand. Whether we
build on the authority of Origen, or of the Ancient Manuscripts, or that of the
Versions of the Oriental or of the Western Church, all our documents must be
taken subject to the testimony of tradition. But it seems to be a strange
perversion of reason which will lead any man to give a preference to such
vouchers over the proper witnesses of the inspired Word. For while the
testimony of the former is subject to the same casualties as that of the
latter, in having the stream of tradition rendered turbid in its course; it is
exposed to infinitely greater chances of corruption from external sources.
Particular Manuscripts, not to speak of the sacred writings, yet of the ancient
Fathers are liable to gross and willful corruption at the first; and Versions
may be made, for aught we can determine, from corrupt copies, or by unskillful
hands. In these possible cases, we are possessed of no certain criterion to
arrive at the truth. But we must be assured, that the Sacred Writings were
delivered in immaculate purity, to those churches, to whom they were committed;
that they were guarded from corruption by commanding that veneration which has
never been excited by any human work; and that they have been dispersed to a
degree which rendered their universal corruption utterly impossible, and
consequently not likely to be attempted. It seems therefore to savor of
something worse than paradox to proceed on the supposition that the copies of
Scripture are generally corrupted; and that the true reading may be acquired in
other and suspicious sources.
PART
2
The External Evidence
Here,
consequently, this discussion might be brought to a close, were it not
expedient to anticipate some objections which may be urged against the
conclusion, which it has been hitherto my object to establish. Of the texts of
the Greek Vulgate, which have been vindicated as genuine, Act. xx. 28, 1 Tim.
iii. 16, 1 Joh. v. 7 have been exposed to formidable objections. The Palestine
edition in its reading of those passages has obtained a strenuous advocate in
M. Griesbach. Having already laid the various readings of that edition before
the reader, and specified some objections deduced from the internal evidence
which preclude our considering them genuine, I shall now proceed, in the first
place, to state the testimony on which their authenticity is supported, and
then to offer some of the objections by which it appears to be invalidated.
1. Of
Manuscripts, ten only are cited in favor of kuvrioj in Acts
xx 28; not half that number in favor of o]j in 1 Tim. iii 16; all that
are extant and known, with the
exception of two, in favor of the reading of M. Griesbach's corrected edition
[in 1 John 5:7].
2. Of
Versions, the Sahidic, Coptic, Armenian, and margin of the later Syriac,
support kuvrioj in Act. xx. 28; the same versions, with the Ethiopic and
Erpenian Arabic, support o]j in 1 Tim. iii. 16: and all
that are extant, except the Latin Vulgate and Armenian, the corrected reading
of 1 Joh. v. 7.
3. Of the
Fathers who have been cited in favor of the Palestine text, the following is a
brief statement. (1.) On Act. xx 28. St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus, Eusebius,
Didymus, S. Chrysostom, and Theophylact; S. Jerome, Lucifer, and Augustine;
Theodorus Studites, Maximus, Antonius, Ibas, Sedulius, and Alcimus; the
Apostolical Constitutions, the Council of Nice, and the second Council of Carthage;
a catena quoting Ammonius, and a manuscript containing the Epistles of S.
Athanasius. (2.) On 1 Tim. iii. 16 Cyril Alexandrinus, S. Jerome, Theodorus
Mopsuestenus, Epiphanius, Gelasius Cyzicenus, and, on his authority, Macarius
of Jerusalem. (3.) On I Joh. v. 7 it has been deemed sufficient to state that
the fathers are wholly silent respecting it in the Trinitarian controversy,
while some of them even quote the subjoined verse, and strain that doctrine
from it by an allegorical interpretation, which is plainly asserted in the
contested passage.
Such is the
external testimony which is offered in favor of those verses as they are
inserted in the Corrected Text. And yet, however formidable it may appear, it
seems exposed to no less formidable objections.
In reply to
the testimony of Manuscripts quoted on this subject, it seems sufficient to
state that they are collectively descended from the edition of Eusebius, and
are consequently disqualified from appearing in evidence on account of his
peculiar opinions. With respect to the few manuscripts which support the
reading of Acts xx. 28, 1 Tim. iii. 16. they particularly approximate to his
edition, as containing the Palestine text, and are consequently on that account
not entitled to the least degree of credit.
The same
observation may be made in reply to the testimony of Versions which has been
adduced in evidence on this subject. None of them can lay claim to a degree of
antiquity prior to the fourth century. In that age the principal of the ancient
versions were made, chiefly under the auspices of Constantine the Great, who
employed Eusebius to revise the text of Scripture. The only probability
consequently is, that they were accommodated to the Palestine edition, and the
principal versions cited on the present question bear internal evidence of the
fact, as they coincide with the Palestine text and are divided by Eusebius's
sections. Such is particularly the case with the Sahidic and Coptic, the later
Syriac and Latin translations. They cannot, of course, be allowed any separate
voice from the Palestine text in deciding the matter at issue.
This
consideration seems to leave very little weight to the authority of the
Fathers, who are adduced in evidence on this subject. With a few exceptions,
which are of no account, they also succeeded the age of Eusebius; in referring
cursorily to those verses they may be conceived to have quoted from his
edition, as containing the received text of the age in which they flourished. I
here except, as preceding his time, S. Ignatius, S. Irenaeus, and the compilers
of the Apostolical Constitutions, who have been quoted in support of Act. xx.
28, but their testimony is not entitled to the smallest respect, as derived to
us through the most suspicious channels. The first and last of these witnesses
are quoted from editions which have been notoriously corrupted, as it is
conceived, by the Arians, and we consequently find that the genuine works of
Ignatius read with the Byzantine Text instead of the Palestine. And with regard
to St. Irenaeus's evidence, it is quoted merely from a translation which has
been made by some barbarous writer who, in rendering the scriptural quotation’s
of his original, has followed the Latin version which agrees with St. Irenaeus
in possessing the Palestine reading.
We might give
up the remaining authorities without any detriment to our cause. With respect
to the evidence of St. Athanasius, St. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Cyril of
Alexandria, it is most unfairly wrested in support of the Corrected Text, as it
is decidedly in favor of the Received Text, where it is fully and explicitly
delivered. As to that of Eusebius, a word need not be advanced to invalidate
its credit. With respect to Didymus, Jerome, Lucifer, Augustine, and Sedulius,
it was as natural that they should quote the received text of their times, or
follow the original Greek, as that we should follow our authorized version in
preference to the Greek of Erasmus, or any of the translations of the early reformers. A few words would serve in reply to the
authority of the Councils cited on this subject; that of Nice has been however
most falsely and imperfectly reported, and that of Carthage, as reported in
Greek, supports the received text, while in Latin it supports the corrected.
If, after these observations, the testimony of the remaining writers cited on
this subject be alleged, throwing Ammonius and Macarius into the same scale, as
entitled to equal respect, from the questionable shape in which they approach
us, we think the advocates of the Corrected Text, who must receive this
testimony subject to the mistakes of the original authors and the errors of
subsequent transcribers, fully entitled to the benefit of their authority. We
have thus only to deplore the peculiar state of those who are reduced to the
desperate situation of sustaining a cause which rests on so unsolid a
foundation.
In reply to
the argument which is deduced in favor of the corrected reading of 1 John v. 7
from the silence of the fathers, who have neglected to appeal to this text in
the Trinitarian controversy, it may be, in the first place, observed that no
such controversy existed.
In the first
age of the Church the subjects debated by the Catholics and heretics turned
upon the divinity and the humanity of Christ; on the doctrine of the Trinity
there was no room for maintaining a contest. Not only the heretics, but the
sects from which they sprang, would to a man have subscribed to the letter of
this text, as they admitted the existence of “three” powers, or principles, in
the "one" Divinity. Such was the doctrine of the two great sects
into which they may be divided, consisting of Gnostics and Ebionites, for such
was the doctrine of the Jews and Magians from whom those sects respectively
descended; and such, consequently, is the doctrine which is expressly ascribed
to Simon Magus, Cerinthus, Ebion, Valentinus, Marcion, and their followers.
To the
Gnostics the Sabellians succeeded, whose opinions had been previously held by
Noetus, and subsequently maintained by Paul of Samosata.
But I yet remain to be
informed how this text could have been opposed to the errors of those heretics.
As they followed the Ebionites, and 1 Joh. v. 7 had been quoted by the
Evangelist as a concession of those heretics, this text, in the strictness of
the letter, decided rather in their favor, than in that of the orthodox.
Marcellus of
Ancyra and Photinus his disciple are referred to the Sabellian school. The
contests maintained with them seem to lie most within the range of the disputed
text, and to have assumed most the appearance of a Trinitarian controversy. But
a very slight acquaintance with the subject of this controversy will clearly
evince, that this text was wholly unsuitable to the purpose of those who were
engaged in sustaining it. Eusebius and Marcellus, by whom it was carried on,
were professedly agreed on the existence of "three" persons or
subsistences in the Divine Nature; one of which they likewise believed to be
“the Word," or Logos, and asserted to be "one" with God; it is
consequently inconceivable that the text should be quoted to settle any point
which was contested between them. The whole stress of the controversy rested on
the force of the term Son, as opposed to the term "Word," or Logos;
for the latter being equivocal, afforded the heretics an opportunity of
explaining away its force, so as to confound the persons, after the error of
Sabellius, while the former, as implying its correlative Father, effectually
refuted this error, by establishing a personal diversity between the
subsistences; since it involved an absurdity to consider a Father the same as
his Son, or represent him as begetting himself. As the text before us uses the
term "Word" instead of Son, it must be directly apparent that it was
wholly unqualified to settle the point at issue; it can be therefore no matter
of surprise that no appeal. is made to it in the whole of the controversy.
Eusebius and Marcellus had, however, other reasons for declining to cite its
authority. As the ardor of controversy drove them into extremes, the one
leaning towards the error of Arius, and the other towards that of Sabellius,
the text in dispute, as containing the orthodox doctrine, must have been as
unsuitable to the purpose of the one as of the other; the term e]n making as much against Eusebius, who divided the
substance, as the term trei/j against Marcellus, who
confounded the persons. From this circumstance we are consequently enabled to
account for more than their silence; for thus we clearly discover the cause
which induced the one to expunge this text from his edition, and the other to
acquiesce in its suppression.
We may pass
over the opinions of Theodotus and Artemon, as well as over those of Montanus
and the Encratites. The controversies with the former never extended to the
consideration of the Trinity, or were conducted on the same principles as
against the Sabellians; the notions of the latter on the subject of that
doctrine were perfectly orthodox. In these contests, of course, we must look in
vain for a Trinitarian controversy, or for a suitable occasion to cite the
verse in question.
To the
Sabellians the Arians may be opposed, as falling into the opposite extreme; the
former confounding the Persons, as the latter divided the substance. But the
contests maintained with these heretics, as not extended beyond the
consideration of the second Person, did not assume the form of a Trinitarian
controversy. The whole of the matter in debate the Catholics conceived capable
of being decided by a few texts, some of which had the high authority of our
Lord, and on such they rested the whole weight of the contest. As they were
accused by their opponents of falling into the opposite extreme of the
Sabellians, the contested passage must have been wholly unsuitable to their
purpose, as embarrassing the question with greater difficulties than those
which they undertook to remove. It is therefore little wonderful that they did
not appeal to it in their contests with these heretics.
The same reasons
which prevented the orthodox from citing this passage in their contests with
the Arians, prevented them from citing it in their disputes with the
Macedonians. In the latter case there was no question agitated respecting the
second Person of the Trinity, as in the former no question respecting the
third. In neither, of course, did the contests maintained with those heretics
assume the form of a Trinitarian controversy, or admit of support from the
contested passage.
We may subjoin
the followers of Nestorius and Eutyches to those of Macedonius. But neither of
the former sects denied the doctrine of the Trinity; their disputes with the
Catholics being properly confined to the question whether the Son possessed one
subsistence or two persons, instead of two subsistences and one person. In
these controversies, of course, there was no greater necessity for an appeal to
the disputed passage, than in any of the preceding.
After the
period which produced these controversies, all enquiry must be fruitless which
is directed in search of a Trinitarian controversy. That with the Pelagians
engaged the attention of the Church for a long time subsequent to this period,
and agitated the eastern and western world. But it was of a different character
from those which preceded. The disputants, having at length agreed on the
existence of the third person, now began to dispute on his mode of operation, a
discussion which, consequently, admitted of no appeal to the text of the
heavenly witnesses.
It will,
however, be doubtless objected, that although the controversies maintained by
the Church, as not embracing the doctrine of the Trinity, did not admit of
reference to 1 John v 7, yet, as turning on the divinity and the humanity of
Christ, they necessarily suggested the expediency of an appeal to Acts xx. 28,
1 Tim. iii. 16. But this objection will have little force when it is remembered
that the passage was not considered decisive, as not using the term Christ, and
that the heretics who excepted against the doctrine inculcated in those texts,
rejected also that part of the canon in which they are contained. Of the
heretics who took the lead in this controversy, the Ebionites wholly renounced
the authority of St. Paul, and the Gnostics, Marcionites, Valentinians, and
their followers, corrupted or rejected the Acts and Epistles to Timothy. The
orthodox were consequently reduced to the necessity of deducing their
scriptural proof from that part of the canon on the authority of which they and
their adversaries were mutually agreed, and were thus prevented from making
those frequent appeals to the verses in dispute which the controversy may be
conceived to have suggested.
It is thus apparent from the state of the early controversies
maintained by the Catholics that there was no point contested which rendered an
appeal to the text of the heavenly witnesses absolutely necessary. It may be
now shown, from the distinctions introduced in those controversies, that the
orthodox were so far from having any inducement to appeal to this text, that
they had every reason to avoid an allusion to it, as it apparently favored the
tenets of their opponents.
From the brief
sketch which has been given of the progress of controversy in the primitive
church, it must be apparent that the Sabellian controversy presented the most
suitable occasion for an appeal to the contested passage. The peculiar tenets
of the different sects which may be classed under this name had originated with
the Jews, and had been adopted from them in the Egyptian Gospel from whence they
descended to Noetus, Praxeas, Sabellius, and their followers. Under Paul of
Samosata, they attained that influence in the Syriac Church which occasioned
the meeting of the Council of Antioch. In the following century they were
revived by Marcellus, Photinus, and Apollinarius, and were expressly condemned
by the Council of Sirmium, which was convened against the Photinians.
Of the tenets of these different sects we have an explicit account
not only in the writings of those polemics who opposed their errors, but in the
confessions of faith which were drawn up by the councils that were summoned
against them. But in whatever form Sabellianism presents itself, we are
compelled to acknowledge that it absolutely derives support from the text of
the heavenly witnesses. These heretics, adhering to the very letter of the
text, asserted that the “Word” and “Spirit” were in God, as the reason and soul
are in man; a stronger testimony in their favor than that of the heavenly
witnesses could not be easily fabricated. It seems to be therefore just as
reasonable to expect that the Catholics would appeal to this text, in
vindicating the doctrine of the Trinity against those heretics, as that they
would cite the Shema of the Jews, for the same purpose; "Hear, O Israel,
the Lord our God is one Lord." This is so palpably the case that in the
council of Antioch the word o`moousion was wholly rejected, though in this term the whole strength of
the Catholics' cause was rested, and in that of Sirmium it was passed over in
silence; the heretics having carried their notions of the doctrine of one
substance, which is asserted in the disputed verse, to such an extent, that
they confounded the persons, in establishing their favorite tenet.
It may be
however objected that as this text must have been challenged by the heretics,
some reference must have been made to it by the orthodox, in replying to the
arguments of their opponents. It is much to be regretted that we retain no more
of the controversies of those heretics, than their orthodox adversaries were
able to refute; yet scanty as the accounts of those controversies are we
discover sufficient in the remains of them to warrant us in asserting that the
disputed text was claimed by the heretics. The controversy maintained by
Tertullian against Praxeas, and by Epiphanius against the Sabellians, supply
the only places in which we might expect that some allusion would be made to
the disputed passage, for the reply of Eusebius to Marcellus must be set out of
the question for reasons which were formerly specified. In the works of
Tertullian and Epiphanius we consequently find manifest traces of the disputed
text, which very sufficiently declare that it was not only appealed to in the
controversy, but challenged on the side of the heretics.
If we now consider the period during which the Sabellian
controversy prevailed, we shall easily perceive that the negative argument
adduced against 1 Joh. v. 7 derives its entire strength from an inattention to the true state of that
controversy, and the period for which it prevailed. The first effectual opposition
which was made against that heresy was in the
council of Antioch, about sixty years previously to the council of Nice. From
this period it silently gathered strength from the opposition of Arianism,
until it was formally condemned in the middle of the fourth century by the
council of Sirmium. The last effectual blow was struck against those rival
sects in the second general council, convened at the close of the same age in
Constantinople. But for a long period after this time they continued to infest
the Oriental Church, until they broke out in the middle of the fifth century in
the heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches.
Let us
therefore advert to the history of the sacred text for the whole of this period,
and view it comparatively with the state of religious controversy. Let us
remember that in the earlier part of the term the canon was revised by
Eusebius, the avowed adversary of the Sabellians, with the most unlimited
powers to render it conducive to the promotion of what he believed [was] the
ecclesiastical doctrine. Let us recollect that at the latter part of the term
the Vulgar Text was again restored by the Catholics, whose prejudices were not
less violently opposed to the Sabellian errors than their avowed enemies, the
Arians; and that the disputed text was still conceived to be on the side of the
heterodox. Let us hence consider the peculiar tendency of Eusebius's religious
opinions, and the versatility of principle which he exhibited in the Council
of Nice on the subject of the doctrine inculcated in the disputed passage. Let
us keep in view the confession of St. Epiphanius, who flourished when the Greek
Vulgate was restored; that in the sacred text, as revised by the orthodox, some
remarkable passages were omitted, of which the orthodox were apprehensive. Let
us further consider that this charge is brought home to the Epistle which
contains the disputed verse, if not to the passage in question, by Socrates,
who declares that the former was mutilated by those who wished to sever the
humanity of Christ from his Divinity. Let us next remember the confession of
St. Chrysostom, under whom the vulgar Greek, which had been restored under
Nectarius, was fully reinstated at Constantinople, that the disputed text was
most likely to be included among the omitted passages. Let us finally call to
mind how closely the Nestorian and the Eutychian heresy followed after those
times; and that the former was not affected by the disputed passage, while the
latter was to all appearances established by its authority. When we consider all these circumstances, which must have
severally contributed to render the orthodox cautious in making the most remote
allusion to a text which militated against them, and which was at best of
suspicious authority, as removed from the authorized edition; so far shall we
be from requiring express allegations of it in every controversy which was
agitated during the period of nearly two centuries, in which the doctrine of
the Trinity was canvassed, and which was gradually settled by the first four
general councils, that we shall be at a loss to discover in what shape it could
have been produced by the Catholics, had it even retained its place in the
authorized edition, from which it was removed in the earlier part of the term.
When these
considerations are duly estimated, the declining strength of the negative
argument against 1 Joh. v. 7 may be easily disposed of. It has been often
objected that the context of the evangelist, both preceding and following the
disputed verse has been quoted, while the disputed verse is wholly omitted; and
that the doctrine of the Trinity has been proved by an allegorical
interpretation of verse 8 which is expressly asserted in verse 7. The former
assertion is principally founded on the testimony of an anonymous writer in St.
Cyprian and P. Leo the great; the latter on the testimony of St. Augustine and
Facundus Hermionensis. But these objections admit of a very simple solution.
However
paradoxical the assertion may in the first instance appear, it is
notwithstanding the fact, that a stronger argument was deducible from the
testimony of the earthly witnesses in favor of the Catholic doctrine, than from
that of the heavenly witnesses. The point on which the orthodox and heterodox
divided was the diversity of the Persons; on the unity of the substance there
was no difference of opinion between the Catholics on the one side, and the
Sabellians, the Apollinarists, and the Eutychians, on the other. The whole of
the distinctions on which the orthodox founded their proofs of the former point
were lacking in the disputed verse, but those on which the heterodox founded
their proofs of the latter were forcibly marked in the same passage. The
Sabellians contended that the Father, and his Word, and Spirit, were one
Person, while the Catholics maintained that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,
must be three Persons. And the Apollinarists and Eutychians held that the three
which bore record in heaven were one substance, the humanity of Christ being
absorbed in his Divinity; while the Catholics, asserting the existence of two
natures in the same Divine Person, believed that Christ was of one substance
with God in the former, but of a like substance with Man in the latter. We thus
easily discover the causes which induced the orthodox to rest their cause on
the testimony of the earthly witnesses instead of the heavenly. The specific
mention of "the blood" in verse 8 not only designated Christ as a
separate Person from the Father, against the Sabellians; but as a Person, in
whom the human nature was united with the divine, without any confusion of
substance, against the Eutychians. Under this view, the preference shown by the
orthodox to the text of the earthly witnesses, over that of the heavenly, needs
no palliation from the circumstance of the one text being unquestioned and the
other of doubtful authority, in the age when those points were debated.
From the
negative testimony of Pseudo-Cyprian, St. Augustine, P. Leo, and Facundus Hermionensis,
we can consequently deduce nothing more, than that the text of the heavenly
witnesses was absent from the current copies of the vulgate of St. Jerome,
which was in general use when they wrote; and that it best answered the purpose
of those writers to pass it over in silence. St. Augustine's testimony is thus
easily disposed of; he wrote while the heresy of Apollinarius prevailed, and
with a peculiar respect for the corrected translation of St. Jerome in which the disputed verse was
omitted. The testimony of P. Leo and Facundus presents still fewer
difficulties, as it is adduced from their controversy with the Eutychians, it
is not entitled to the smallest respect. The disputed text embarrassed their
cause with difficulties which they were unable to solve; it is therefore
unreasonable to expect in their works anything in the shape of an appeal to its
authority. In fact, it must be apparent to the most superficial observer, that
Facundus has absolutely labored to destroy its authority by depriving it of the
support of St. Cyprian. But with so much skill has he effected his purpose,
that in retaining the phrase "in earth," in order to strengthen the
verse which he has quoted, he has evinced, beyond the possibility of dispute,
that the phrase "in heaven," with its context, was extant in the text
which was before him.
This consideration will enable us to appreciate the testimony of
the anonymous writer in St. Cyprian, and to give some account of the origin of
that work which is written on the baptism of heretics. And when we consider
that the controversy on this subject was soon terminated; and that some works
were ascribed to St. Cyprian, by the Macedonians, for the purpose of supporting
points of controversy like that before us; we may at least admit the
possibility that this anonymous tract might have been fabricated for the
express purpose of exhibiting the context of St. John without the disputed
passage. This passage was thus deprived, at a stroke, of the testimony of St.
Cyprian and of the text which existed in his times; and this, as we have seen,
in the peculiar case of P. Leo and Facundus, was no inconsiderable object with
the polemics who engaged in those days. Until at least some better account is
given of this anonymous tract, we need not regard with much apprehension any
appeal to its testimony on the subject at present contested.
Nor do the
objections which have been adduced against the testimony of Eucherius, from the
diversity of the copies which contain that writer's works, and which sometimes
omit the contested passage, at all affect the point in dispute. Eucherius
preceded the era which produced the Eutychian controversy; and in quoting the
disputed text he furnished an authority in favor of that heresy. As the removal
of an obnoxious passage from his works was merely an accommodation of his
quotations to the sacred tent, as corrected by the Greek, it is only wonderful
that the text of the heavenly witnesses should have retained its place in any
copy of his writings. For the testimony of Cerealis fully evinces that this
text has disappeared from some tracts in which it was originally inserted.
The variations
of the disputed passage, as read in the modern Latin Vulgate, present no
greater difficulty. In some copies it is wholly omitted, in some it is annexed
in the margin, though in most it is inserted in the text. But that it has been
thus added, as a gloss on the eighth verse, is an assumption which may be very
easily refuted. In the first place it was a custom unknown to the primitive church
to allude to the mystery of the Trinity, unless in oblique terms, before those
who had not been initiated in the Christian covenant. In the next place, the
seventh verse is really no explanatory gloss of the eighth, unless we suppose
it framed by the heretics. From the times of Tertullian and Cyprian, in whose
interpretations the disputed verse is supposed to have originated, to those of
Fulgentius and Eugenius, in whose times it was confessedly incorporated in the
sacred canon, an orthodox exposition of the doctrine extracted from the eighth
verse, could have been only expressed in the terms the "Father and the
Son," instead of "the Father and the Word," &c. By the
latter reading, of course, the supposition that the seventh verse is a marginal
gloss on the eighth, is so completely overthrown, that it furnishes a very
decisive confirmation of the contrary assumption, that the disputed verse was
originally suppressed, not gradually introduced, into the Latin translation.
In fact, as
the explanation offered by the impugners of the text of the heavenly witnesses,
to account for the varieties in this translation, thus wholly fails of its end,
a very satisfactory solution of the difficulty which thus arises may be
suggested in the consideration that St. Jerome put forth two editions of the
Catholic Epistles, in one of which the contested verse was omitted, though it
was retained in the other. And this conjecture may be maintained on the
strength of many corroborating circumstances. It is indisputable that two
editions of some books of Scripture had been not only published by that early
father; but that one edition had been in some instances dedicated to
Eustochium, to whom the Catholic Epistles are inscribed in the Prologue. Now as
St. Jerome likewise undertook the revisal of the Italic translation, at the
request of P. Damasus, we have thus authority for believing that two editions
had been published of the part of Scripture in question. And admitting this to
have been the case, every difficulty in the matter before us admits of the
clearest solution, Agreeably to the prejudices of the age in which the Latin
Vulgate was published, St. Jerome inserted the contested verse in the text
which was designed for private use, omitting it in that which was intended far
general circulation. And in thus acting he adhered to the peculiar plan which
he had prescribed to himself in revising the Latin translation, having omitted
the disputed verse in the authorized version, on the authority of the Greek,
from whence it had been removed by Eusebius, but having availed himself of the
variations of the Latin translation, in choosing that reading of the disputed
verse which was calculated to support the ecclesiastical doctrine of one
substance, as understood by the initiated in the Christian mysteries.
On summing up
the arguments which have been urged against the text of the heavenly witnesses,
I cannot therefore discover any thing which materially affects the authenticity
of this verse, either in the omissions of the Greek manuscripts or the silence
of the Greek fathers, in the variations of the Latin version or the allegorical
explanations of the Latin polemics. The objections hence raised against that
text are perfectly consistent with that strong evidence in its favor, which is
deducible from the internal evidence and the external testimony of the African
Church, which testimony remains to be disposed of before we can consider it
spurious. Nor is there any objection to which the text of the Vulgar Greek is
exposed, in other respects, which at all detracts from its credit.
It has been
stated against I Joh. v. 7, 8. as read in the Greek Vulgate, that the objection
raised to the grammatical structure of the Palestine text, is removed but a
step back by the insertion of I Joh. v, 7, as the same false concord occurs in
the context [in] I Joh. v. 8. as read in the Byzantine edition; trei/j
oi` marturou/ntej being there made to agree
with to. Pneu/ma( kai. to. u[dwr. But this
objection has been made without any attention to the force of the figure
attraction. The only difficulty which embarrasses the construction lies is
furnishing the first adjectives trei/j
oi` marturou/ntej with substantives; which is effectually done, by the insertion of o`
path,r( o` lo,goj,
in the disputed passage. The subsequent trei/j oi` marturou/ntej are thence attracted to the
foregoing adjectives, instead of being governed by the subsequent to.
Pneu/ma( kai. to. u[dwr, in the strictest consistency with the style of St. John and the
genius of the Greek language.
It has been further objected to the Byzantine text; that evkklhsi,an
tou/ Qeou Act. xx.
28 has been substituted for evkklhsi,an tou/ kuri,ou, in order to accommodate the
phrase to the style of St. Paul; and that parallel examples to o]j
evfanerw,qh [in] 1
Tim. iii. 16. used in the definitive sense of "he who was
manifested," occur in Mar, iv. 25, Luc.
viii. 18, Rom. viii. 32. But the former observation appears to me to remove one
difficulty by the happy expedient of creating a greater; for thus a double
inconsistency is substantiated—against the Apostle in the first instance, and
against the Evangelist in the second, which is no less happily conceived to be
corrected by the blunder of a transcriber.
And the latter observation unfortunately finds not the least support from
the adduced examples, as they are essentially different from the passages which
they are taken to illustrate.
It has been
further urged against the Greek Vulgate that Liberatus states the vulgar
reading of I Tim. iii. 16. to be a correction of the heretic Macedonius; and
that I John v. 7. could not have existed in the sacred text in the age of the
Alogi, since these heretics rejected the Gospel of St. John as militating
against their peculiar opinions, yet have not objected to the Epistles of the
Evangelist, which are equally opposed to their tenets when the disputed verse
forms a part of his context. But when the principles of Liberatus are taken
into account, together with the obscurity and contradictoriness of his
testimony, it will not be deemed worthy of implicit credence. We may however
grant that it has every foundation in truth, without effecting in the least the
integrity of the Greek Vulgate. When it is remembered that the reading which
Macedonius is said to have corrected is found in a verse which Eusebius had
previously corrupted, we may admit that the alteration was made in some copies,
and yet maintain that the integrity of the sacred text was restored, not
impaired, by the last emendation. But the possibility of thus altering a few
copies will be still infinitely remote from accounting for the general
corruption of the Greek Vulgate, and until this object is attained the present
objection must wholly fail of its intention. As to that which has been advanced
from the consideration of the Alogi, who have not objected to St. John's
Epistle, it seems to have been urged from a partial view of St. Epiphanius's
account of those heretics. As far as I can collect from his words, he has
implicitly declared that they objected not less to the Epistles written by St.
John, than to his Gospel. And had not
this been the case, the objection might be easily set aside, as it equally
proves, that the first verses of the Epistle must have been also absent from
the Apostle's text, as they are even more strongly opposed to the peculiar
tenets of the Alogi. As this is a position which will be hardly sustained by
any objector, I apprehend that the present objection in proving so much, really
proves nothing.
A few words
will now cover the Greek Vulgate. from every objection which has been raised to
its verbal integrity. It has been an
old objection urged against the Apocalypse and Epistle to the Hebrews, that
neither of those canonical books corresponds with the style of the author, with
whose name they are inscribed; the one possessing an elevation of language
which is not discoverable in the works of St. Paul, the other abounding in
solecisms which are not discoverable in the other writings of St. John the
Evangelist. But when due allowances are made for the latitude in which the term
style was used by the ancients; and when the peculiar subjects of the books
under review are taken into account, this objection, which at best is founded
on a very fallacious criterion, admits of a very easy solution. As the term
style, in the original acceptation, was applied not merely to the peculiar mode
of expression in which a writer delivers himself, but jointly to the diction
and sentiment, an elevation in the latter which arises out of the subject, has
afforded the chief ground to the objection. In the retrospect which the one
Apostle takes of the primitive state of the Church, and in the prospect which
the other gives into its future fortune, objects seized the imagination which
were essentially different from those which engrossed the attention, when they
described the acts of our Lord, or inculcated his doctrines. Adapting their
language to their matter, they adopt a different elevation of manner in
treating different subjects, and have thus furnished the objector with grounds
to urge his exceptions. With greater plausibility have they been urged against
the Apocalypse, than the Epistle to the Hebrews. By a nice attention to the
texture of the phrase, many expressions have been discovered in the latter, which
are characteristic of the manner adopted by St. Paul in his other Epistles. And
though some expressions in the Apocalypse appear to be less reconcilable to the
style of St. John, yet when it is considered that they are Hebrew idioms which
are particularly suited to the prophetical style which is adopted by St. John,
we have no great allowance to make for the difference of the Evangelist's
subject, in order to meet every objection which has been made to these
passages.
Thus weighing every objection which has been stated against the
Greek Vulgate, there appears to be none urged which can at all affect its
integrity as a perfect rule of faith and manners. In regarding the constitution
of the primitive church, and the care taken to disperse the commonest documents
relative to ecclesiastical polity, it is impossible even to conceive how the
inspired text could have been corrupted in the first ages of Christianity. In
the age of St. Irenaeus and Tertullian, who followed in the next succession
after the Apostles, the authenticity of the sacred canon was investigated with
the utmost care; and in the age of Origen, who succeeded at no great interval
of time, it was still considered free from corruption. To the period
intervening between his times and those of St. Chrysostom, whatever alterations
were made in the text must be referred, as at the latter period the vulgar
text, which has been since used in the Church, was confessedly adopted. In this
period, which extends to little more than an hundred and fifty years, we are
accordingly informed that those editions of the Greek were published to which
we can trace every variety in the sacred text, whether existing in the original
or in translations. Of these editions, however, two only are entitled to any
consideration; that of Palestine, which prevails in the writings of Eusebius,
Athanasius, Cyril, and Isidore, and is, found in the Vatican manuscript; and
that of Byzantium, which prevails in the writing of Chrysostom, Gregory
Nyssene, Nazianzene, &c. and is found in the great body of Greek
manuscripts. The weight of evidence which supports both editions has been
already laid in detail before the reader. In almost all points of importance
they mutually afford each other confirmation; and where this coincidence fails
the testimony of the oldest witnesses, contained in the primitive Italic and
Syriac versions, is generally found on the side of the Greek Vulgate, the
testimony of those witnesses being further confirmed by that of the primitive
fathers. The variations in the testimony of later texts, versions, and writers,
is besides easily traced to the influence of the Marcionite and Valentinian
heresies, which, as merely affecting a text essentially different from the
Vulgar Greek, leaves the evidence arising in favor of this text from the
immemorial tradition of the Church, unaffected by any objection.
In the single instance of the text of the heavenly witnesses a
difficulty arises, as it cannot be denied that this verse has been wholly lost
in the Greek Vulgate. But I cannot admit that the integrity of the sacred text
is at all affected by this consideration. Were the Greek Church the only
witness of its integrity, or guardian of its purity, the objection would be of
vital importance. But in deciding the present question, the
|| Pope Shenouda || Father Matta || Bishop Mattaous || Fr. Tadros Malaty || Bishop Moussa || Bishop Alexander || Habib Gerguis || Bishop Angealos || Metropolitan Bishoy ||
|| The Orthodox Faith (Dogma) || Family and Youth || Sermons || Bible Study || Devotional || Spirituals || Fasts & Feasts || Coptics || Religious Education || Monasticism || Seasons || Missiology || Ethics || Ecumenical Relations || Church Music || Pentecost || Miscellaneous || Saints || Church History || Pope Shenouda || Patrology || Canon Law || Lent || Pastoral Theology || Father Matta || Bibles || Iconography || Liturgics || Orthodox Biblical topics || Orthodox articles || St Chrysostom ||
|| Bible Study || Biblical topics || Bibles || Orthodox Bible Study || Coptic Bible Study || King James Version || New King James Version || Scripture Nuggets || Index of the Parables and Metaphors of Jesus || Index of the Miracles of Jesus || Index of Doctrines || Index of Charts || Index of Maps || Index of Topical Essays || Index of Word Studies || Colored Maps || Index of Biblical names Notes || Old Testament activities for Sunday School kids || New Testament activities for Sunday School kids || Bible Illustrations || Bible short notes|| Pope Shenouda || Father Matta || Bishop Mattaous || Fr. Tadros Malaty || Bishop Moussa || Bishop Alexander || Habib Gerguis || Bishop Angealos || Metropolitan Bishoy ||
|| Prayer of the First Hour || Third Hour || Sixth Hour || Ninth Hour || Vespers (Eleventh Hour) || Compline (Twelfth Hour) || The First Watch of the midnight prayers || The Second Watch of the midnight prayers || The Third Watch of the midnight prayers || The Prayer of the Veil || Various Prayers from the Agbia || Synaxarium