NEW BOOK IN DEFENSE OF 1 JOHN 5:7-8

[Distributed by Way of Life Literature’s Fundamental Baptist Information Service.These articles cannot be stored on BBS or Internet sites without express permission from the author. The articles cannot be sold or placed by themselves or with other material in any electronic format for sale, but may be distributed for free by e-mail or by print. They must be left intact and nothing removed or changed, including these informational headers. This is a listing for Fundamental Baptists and other fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians. Our goal is not devotional. OUR PRIMARY PURPOSE IS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ASSIST PREACHERS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE CHURCHES IN THIS APOSTATE HOUR. If you desire to receive this type of material on a regular basis, e-mail us, tell us who you are and where you are located, and request to be placed on the list. Also include your postal address and the name of the church of which you are a member. Please note that we take up a quarterly offering to fund this ministry, and you will be expected to participate. To unsubscribe or to submit a change of address, send your full name and the request to fbns@wayoflife.org. This is not an automated list. Changes in the database often require two to four days. Some of these articles are from O Timothy magazine. David W. Cloud, Editor. O Timothy is a monthly magazine in its 16th year of publication. Subscription is $20/yr. The Way of Life web site is http://www.wayoflife.org/.]

February 20, 1996 (Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, fbns@wayoflife.org) - In July 1995 Michael Maynard published A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8. This 383-page hard-bound volume carefully traces the evidence pro and con regarding the Trinitarian statement in 1 John 5:7-8 through the centuries. The author demonstrates the theological apostasy of many of those who have despised this passage.

Maynard was saved in 1977 and became a Baptist soon thereafter. He earned an A.A.S. in Engineering Technology at Phoenix College and a B.A. in German at Arizona State University. As a graduate student, he studied classical philology in Tucson at the University of Arizona, where the Classics Department awarded him an appointment as Graduate Assistant in Teaching Classics. He did research at the University in Leipzig, Germany, and engaged in graduate studies at the University in Tbingen, where he completed a class in Textual Criticism, "taught by the foremost scholar of Latin manuscripts of the Bible, Walter Thiele." In 1992 he earned the Master of Library Science degree from the Graduate Library School in Tucson, Arizona. Only 75 out of 1,800 applicants were selected for admission to this program in 1991. He has studied German, Latin, Biblical Hebrew, Syriac, Koine and classical Greek. He continues his studies of foreign languages, having recently completed four semesters of French.

Maynard compiled 137 bibliographic items (37 journal articles, 50 essays from books, and 50 entire books) in pursuit of his subject. Those who think there is no textual defense of 1 John 5:7 should read this book.

There is much more in this volume than the history of the debate of 1 John 5:7,8. The book, in fact, is full of interesting notes related to the subject of Bible texts and versions. Maynard includes a great deal of information about Baptist and Anabaptist texts and versions prior to the Protestant Reformation. He also traces the history of apostasy as it has blossomed in the various churches and ecclesiastical institutions since the mid-nineteenth century.

Maynard gives an interesting reply to the question of why 1 John 5:7 does not appear in many of the Greek manuscripts.

"The second reason that the absence of 1 John v.7f in Greek MSS before the sixteenth century does not constitute disproof, is that God is not obligated to have a regular transmission through Greek MSS for every authentic verse. ... John Owen suggested that God, while preserving the whole scripture entire, allowed a certain variety 'to fall out, in or among the copies we have, for the quickening and exercising of our diligence in our search into his Word' ('The Divine Original of the Scripture,' Works of John Owen, Banner of Truth, 1980, 16: 301).

"The context of Owen's idea, deals with Hebrew texts with 'things of less, indeed of no importance.' But his ideas can surely be applied to the Greek text, with matters of great significance, such as the Trinity. Why then would God decree to allow 1 John v.7f to fall out of 14 relatively early Greek MSS and in many ancient versions? His purpose may have been to draw attention (or to highlight) the importance of the doctrines of the deity and of the Trinity. That almost all the objections to the inclusion of the verse (as Adam Clarke said in 1807) came from 'Unitarians of all classes' demonstrates that it indeed did draw attention to these doctrines. (It would explain the dispute over theos vs. os in 1 Timothy 3:16). It is difficult to suppose that it was merely incidental that the objections to such a verse came from so many Unitarians" (Maynard, A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8, pp. 286,87).]

Maynard also explodes a number of myths which are commonly promoted by modern version proponents. Consider an example:

"Kenyon said of Codex Vaticanus, 'A few readings from it were supplied to Erasmus by his correspondent Sepulveda, but too late for use in his editions of the New Testament.' In this claim, Kenyon made two serious errors. It was not 'too late' because Erasmus' 5th edition appeared in 1535 [two years later]. Nor was it merely a 'few readings,' for in this letter, Sepulveda furnished Erasmus 'with 365 readings as a convincing argument in support of his statements' that Codex Vaticanus is 'a weighty proof of excellence with the Latin version'... (Maynard, p. 88).

"A recent myth (originated by Rummel in 1986, and now parroted by James R. White in 1995) is that Erasmus challenged Edward Lee to find a Greek manuscript which included 1 John 5:7. A much older myth is that Erasmus promised to insert the verse if such a Greek manuscript were produced. Maynard indicated that the Dean of the Faculty of Theology, at Rijksuniversiteit, (Leiden, The Netherlands) has refuted both myths. The Dean, H.J. de Jonge, is a recognized specialist in Erasmian studies. H.J. de Jonge refuted the old myth of a promise in 1980, and he refuted the new myth of a challenge (which Rummel devised in reaction to the burial of the promise myth) in a letter of June 13, 1995, to Maynard.

"I have checked again Erasmus' words quoted by Erika Rummel and her comments on them in her book Erasmus' Annotations. This is what Erasmus writes [on] in his Liber tertius quo respondet ... Ed. Lei: Erasmus first records that Lee had reproached him with neglect of the MSS. of 1 John because Er. (according to Lee) had consulted only one MS. Erasmus replies that he had certainly not used only one ms., but many copies, first in England, then in Brabant, and finally at Basle. He cannot accept, therefore, Lee's reproach of negligence and impiety.

"'Is it negligence and impiety, if I did not consult manuscripts which were simply not within my reach? I have at least assembled whatever I could assemble. Let Lee produce a Greek MS. which contains what my edition does not contain and let him show that that manuscript was within my reach. Only then can he reproach me with negligence in sacred matters.'

"From this passage you can see that Erasmus does not challenge Lee to produce a manuscript etc. What Erasmus argues is that Lee may only reproach Erasmus with negligence of MSS if he demonstrates that Erasmus could have consulted any MS. in which the Comma Johanneum figured. Erasmus does not at all ask for a MS. containing the Comma Johanneum. He denies Lee the right to call him negligent and impious if the latter does not prove that Erasmus neglected a manuscript to which he had access.

"In short, Rummel's interpretation is simply wrong. The passage she quotes has nothing to do with a challenge. Also, she cuts the quotation short, so that the real sense of the passage becomes unrecognizable. She is absolutely not justified in speaking of a challenge in this case or in the case of any other passage on the subject" (Maynard, p. 383).

In his conclusion, Maynard connects textual corruption with Romanism and end-times ecumenism.

"Romanists corrupt the text for the goal of ecumenism. The strategy is not new. As shown above Erasmus believed that the Ecumenical Council of 1438-1445 modified Greek MSS to conform to the Latin to effect 'reunion of the Latin and Greek churches.' ... No one denies that Satan is the Enemy. ... It may be observed that the strategy of Satan shifts in nearly every century. He does use cults, etc., but Romanism always seems to be his major tool. His present intent is ecumenism. The principle factor for the means to this end is textual corruption. Since this is at the basis of ecumenism, then the present debate over Bible versions is not unnecessary as many claim. Since the Scriptures are the basis to settle all doctrinal controversies, then when compared with all other serious challenges that face Christians today, it is surely the single most crucial issue" (Maynard, p. 291).

A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7,8 is available by sending $31.60 + $2.10 S/H to Comma Publications, P.O. Box 1625, Tempe, AZ 85285-1625.

1 John 5:7 Web Site
This web site deals with issues concerning the Received Text, with special emphasis on the verse most often associated with the so-called "Origins of the Textus Receptus," viz., the highly disputed Johannine Comma, a designation for 1 John 5:7b-8a. Operated by Michael Maynard comma@abacusnet.net, author of "A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8." http://www.abacusnet.net/comma comma@abacusnet.net