The authenticity of the words within brackets will, perhaps, no longer be maintained by any one whose judgement ought to have weight; but this result has been arrived at after a long and memorable controversy, which helped to keep alive, especially in England, some interest in Biblical studies, and led to investigations into collateral points of the highest importance, such as the sources of the Received text, the manuscripts employed by R. Stephen, the origin and value of the Velesian readings, and other points. A critical résumé of the whole discussion might be profitably undertaken by some competent scholar; we can at present touch only upon the chief heads of this great debate[439].
The two verses appear in the early editions, with the following notable variations from the common text, C standing for the Complutensian, Er. for one or more of Erasmus' five editions. Ver. 7.—ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ usque ad τῇ γῇ ver. 8, Er. 1, 2.—ὁ prim. et [pg 402] secund. Er. 3. [non C. Er. 4, 5]. + και (post πατήρ) C.—τό Er. 3. πνεῦμα ἅγιον Er. 3, 4, 5.—οὗτοι C. + εισ το (ante εν) C. Ver. 8, επί της γης C.—τὸ ter Er. 3, 4, 5 [habent C. Er. 1, 2].—καὶ οἱ τρεῖς ad fin. vers. C. They are found, including the clause from ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ to ἐν τῇ γῇ in no more than three Greek manuscripts, and those of very late date, one of them (Cod. Ravianus, Evan. 110) being a mere worthless copy from printed books; and in the margin of a fourth, in a hand as late as the sixteenth century. The real witnesses are the Codex Montfortianus, Evan. 61, Act. 34 (whose history was described above, p. 187[440]); Cod. Vat.-Ottob. 298 (Act. 162), and, for the margin, a Naples manuscript (Act. 83 or 173, q. v.). On comparing these slight and scanty authorities with the Received text we find that they present the following variations: ver. 7. ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (pro ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ) 162.—ὁ prim. et secund. 34, 162.—τό 34, 162. πνα ἅγιον 34, 162.—οὗτοι 162. + εἰς τό (ante ἕν) 162. Ver. 8. εἰσί 73 marg. ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς 162.—τό ter 34.—καί (post πνα) 34, 162.—καὶ οἱ τρεῖς ad fin. vers. 34, 162, fin. εἰσι 173. No printed edition, therefore, is found to agree with either 34 or 162 (173, whose margin is so very recent, only differs from the common text by dropping ν ἐφελκυστικόν), though on the whole 162 best suits the Complutensian: but the omission of the article in ver. 7, while it stands in ver. 8 in 162, proves that the disputed clause was interpolated (probably from its parallel Latin) by one who was very ill acquainted with Greek.
The controverted words are not met with in any of the extant uncials (אABKLP) or in any cursives besides those named above[441]: the cursives that omit them were found by the careful calculation of the Rev. A. W. Grafton, Dean Alford's secretary [pg 403] (N. T. ad. loc.), to amount to 188 in all (to which we may now add Codd. 190, 193, 219-221), besides some sixty Lectionaries. The aspect of things is not materially altered when we consult the versions. The disputed clause is not in any manuscript of the Peshitto, nor in the best editions (e.g. Lee's): the Harkleian, Sahidic, Bohairic, Ethiopic, Arabic do not contain it in any shape: scarcely any Armenian codex exhibits it, and only a few recent Slavonic copies, the margin of a Moscow edition of 1663 being the first to represent it. The Latin versions, therefore, alone lend it any support, and even these are much divided. The chief and oldest authority in its favour is Wiseman's Speculum m and r of the earlier translation; it is found in the printed Latin Vulgate, and in perhaps forty-nine out of every fifty of its manuscripts, but not in the best, such as am. fuld. harl.3; nor in Alcuin's reputed copies at Rome (primâ manu) and London (Brit. Mus. Add. 10,546), nor in the book of Armagh and full fifty others. In one of the most ancient which contain it, cav., ver. 8 precedes ver. 7 (as appears also in m. tol. demid. and a codex at Wolfenbüttel, Wizanburg. 99 [viii] cited by Lachmann), while in the margin is written “audiat hoc Arius et ceteri,” as if its authenticity was unquestioned[442]. In general there is very considerable variety of reading (always a suspicious circumstance, as has been already explained), and often the doubtful words stand only in the margin: the last clause of ver. 8 (et hi tres unum sunt), especially, is frequently left out when the “Heavenly Witnesses” are retained. It is to defend this omission by the opinion of Thomas Aquinas, not to account for the reception of the doubtful words, that the Complutensian editors wrote a note, the longest and indeed almost the only one in their New Testament. We conclude, therefore, that the passage from ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ to ἐν τῇ γῇ had no place in ancient Greek manuscripts, but came into some of the Latin at least as early as the sixth century.
The Patristic testimony in its favour, though quite insufficient to establish the genuineness of the clause, is entitled to more consideration. Of the Greek Fathers it has been said that no one has cited it, even when it might be supposed to be most required by his argument, or though he quotes consecutively the verses going immediately before and after it[443]: [but a passage occurs in the Greek Synopsis of Holy Scripture of uncertain date (fourth or fifth century), which appears to refer to it, and another from the Disputation with Arius (Ps.-Athanasius)]. The same must be said of the great Latins, Hilary, Lucifer, Ambrose, Jerome[444], and Augustine, with others of less note. On the other hand the African writers, Vigilius of Thapsus, at the end of the fifth century, and Fulgentius of Ruspe (fl. 508) in two places, expressly appeal to the “three Heavenly Witnesses” as a genuine portion of St. John's Epistle; nor is there much reason to doubt the testimony of Victor Vitensis, who records that the passage was insisted on in a confession of faith drawn up by Eugenius Bishop of Carthage and 460 bishops in 484, and presented to the Arian Hunneric, king of the Vandals [or of Cassiodorus, an Italian, in the sixth century]. From that period the clause became well known in other regions of the West, and was in time generally accepted throughout the Latin Church.
But a stand has been made by the maintainers of this passage on the evidence of two African Fathers of a very different stamp from those hitherto named, Tertullian and Cyprian. If it could be proved that these writers cited or alluded to the passage, it would result—not by any means that it is authentic—but that like Acts viii. 37 and a few other like interpolations, it was known and received in some places, as early as the second or third century. Now as regards the language of Tertullian [pg 405] (which will be found in Tischendorf's and the other critical editions of the N. T.; advers. Prax. 25; de Pudic. 21), it must be admitted that Bp. Kaye's view is the most reasonable, that “far from containing an allusion to 1 John v. 7, it furnishes most decisive proof that he knew nothing of the verse” (Writings of Tertullian, p. 550, second edition); but I cannot thus dispose of his junior Cyprian (d. 258). One must say with Tischendorf (who, however, manages to explain away his testimony) “gravissimus est Cyprianus de eccles. unitate 5.” His words run, “Dicit dominus, Ego et pater unum sumus (John x. 30), et iterum de Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est, Et tres unum sunt.” And yet further, in his Epistle to Jubaianus (73) on heretical baptism: “Si baptizari quis apud haereticos potuit, utique et remissam peccatorum consequi potuit,—si peccatorum remissam consecutus est, et sanctificatus est, et templum Dei factus est, quaero cujus Dei? Si Creatoris, non potuit, qui in eum non credidit; si Christi, nec hujus fieri potuit templum, qui negat Deum Christum; si Spiritus Sancti, cum tres unum sunt, quomodo Spiritus Sanctus placatus esse ei potest, qui aut Patris aut Filii inimicus est?” If these two passages be taken together (the first is manifestly much the stronger[445]), it is surely safer and more candid to admit that Cyprian read ver. 7 in his copies, than to resort to the explanation of Facundus [vi], that the holy Bishop was merely putting on ver. 8 a spiritual meaning; although we must acknowledge that it was in this way ver. 7 obtained a place, first in the margin, then in the text of the Latin copies, and though we have clear examples of the like mystical interpretation in Eucherius (fl. 440) and Augustine (contra Maximin. 22), who only knew of ver. 8.
Stunica, the chief Complutensian editor, by declaring, in controversy with Erasmus, with reference to this very passage, “Sciendum est, Graecorum codices esse corruptos, nostros [i.e. Latinos] verò ipsam veritatem continere,” virtually admits that ver. 7 was translated in that edition from the Latin, not derived from Greek sources. The versions (for such we must call them) in Codd. 34, 162 had no doubt the same origin, but [pg 406] were somewhat worse rendered: the margin of 173 seems to be taken from a printed book. Erasmus, after excluding the passage from his first two editions, inserted it in his third under circumstances we have before mentioned; and notwithstanding the discrepancy of reading in ver. 8, there can be little or no doubt of the identity of his “Codex Britannicus” with Montfort's[446]. We have detailed the steps by which the text was brought into its present shape, wherein it long remained, unchallenged by all save a few such bold spirits as Bentley, defended even by Mill, implicitly trusted in by those who had no knowledge of Biblical criticism. It was questioned in fair argument by Wetstein, assailed by Gibbon in 1781 with his usual weapons, sarcasm and insinuation (Decline and Fall, chap. xxxvii). Archdeacon Travis, who came to the rescue, a person “of some talent and attainments” (Crito Cantab., p. 335, note), burdened as he was with a weak cause and undue confidence in its goodness, would have been at any rate—impar congressus Achilli—no match at all for the exact learning, the acumen, the wit, the overbearing scorn of Porson[447]. The [pg 407] “Letters” of that prince of scholars, and the contemporaneous researches of Herbert Marsh, have completely decided the contest. Bp. Burgess alone, while yet among us [d. 1837], and after him Mr. Charles Forster [d. 1871], clung obstinately to a few scattered outposts after the main field of battle had been lost beyond recovery[448].
On the whole, therefore, we need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by St. John: that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 8: that from the Latin they crept into two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the printed Greek text, a place to which they had no rightful claim. We will close this slight review with the terse and measured judgement of Griesbach on the subject: “Si tam pauci, dubii, suspecti, recentes testes, et argumenta tam levia, sufficerent ad demonstrandam lectionis cujusdam γνησιότητα, licet obstent tam multa tamque gravia, et testimonia et argumenta: nullum prorsus superesset in re criticâ veri falsique criterium, et textus Novi Testamenti universus planè incertus esset atque dubius” (N. T., ad locum, vol. ii. p. 709).
51. 1 John v. 18. In this verse, according to the Received text, we have the perfect γεγεννημένος of continued effects and the aorist γεννηθείς of completed action used for the same person, although elsewhere in the same Epistle the man begotten of God is invariably γεγεννημένος (ch. ii. 29; iii. 9 bis; iv. 7; v. 1, 4). [pg 408] Hence the special importance of the various reading αὐτόν for ἑαυτόν after τηρεῖ, since, if this were to be accepted, ὁ γεννηθείς could be none other than the Only-begotten Son who keepeth the human sons of God, agreeably to His own declaration in John xvii. 12[449]. In behalf of αὐτόν we can allege only AB, 105 (a cursive collated by Matthaei), and the Vulgate (conservat eum), the testimony of A, always so powerful when sanctioned by B, being nothing weakened by the fact that it is corrected into ἑαυτόν by the original [?] scribe[450], who in copying had faithfully followed his exemplar, and on second thoughts supposed he had gone wrong. All other authorities, including copies, versions, and Fathers, א and the rest (C being lost here), have ἑαυτόν, the Peshitto very expressly [and Origen thrice, Didymus four times, Ephraem Syrus and Severus twice each, besides Theophylact and Œcumenius[451]]. We venture to commend this variation as one of a class Dean Vaughan speaks of, which, seeming violently improbable at first sight, grows upon the student as he becomes familiar with it. It must be confessed, however, that St. Paul makes but slight distinction between the two tenses in Gal. iv. 23, 29, and that we have no other example in Scripture or ecclesiastical writers of ὁ γεννηθείς being used absolutely for the Divine Son, though the contrast here suggested is somewhat countenanced by that between ὁ ἁγιάζων and οἱ ἁγιαζόμενοι in Heb. ii. 11. [So that Dr. Scrivener's view demands considerable sacrifice for its acceptance.]
52. Jude 5. Here we have a variation, vouched for by AB united, which it is hard to think true, however interesting the doctrinal inference would be. Instead of ὁ κύριος λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας, the article is omitted by אAB, and perhaps by C*, so that it must at any rate resign its place; while for ΚΣ of א (apparently of C*) and the mass of copies, with the Harkleian, we find ΙΣ in AB, 6, 7, 13, 29, 66 (secundâ manu), the Vulgate, Sahidic, Bohairic, and both Ethiopic versions. The Bodleian Syriac has yet another variation, ὁ Θεός, in support of which we have the important second hand of C, 5, 8, 68, tol. of the Vulgate, the Armenian (with ισ in the margin), the Arabic of Erpenius, Clement of Alexandria, and Lucifer. The Greek of Didymus has κσ ισ, but his Latin translation ισ, which Jerome also recognized, although he wrongly supposed that Joshua was meant. While we acknowledge that the Person who saved Israel out of Egypt was indeed the Saviour of the world, we should rather expect that He would be called the Christ (1 Cor. x. 4) than Jesus. There is a similar variation between χν, κν, and θν in the parallel passage 1 Cor. x. 9.
Lachmann alone reads Ἰησοῦς here, though Tregelles gives it a place in his margin. Westcott and Hort would be acting on their general principle if they received it, but, while setting Κύριος in the text and Ἰησοῦς in the margin, they brand the passage as corrupt, and would be inclined to believe that the original words were ὁ ... σώσας, without either of the nouns. Dr. Hort (Notes, p. 106) points out how slight the change would be from ΟΤΙΟ to ΟΤΙΣ (one Ι being dropped) in the simple uncials of early times.