Trinity Words An "Addition"

[Pictured: Erasmus] I recently stumbled upon an interesting spat between the KJV-only crowd and (nearly) 'everyone else'. 1 John 5:7-8 contains a major Trinitarian proof text, the "comma Johanneum (or Johanninum)", but this clause is excluded from most modern English translations' primary text.

E.g., NIV: "For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement." (Footnote: "Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century" (emphasis added))

One defense of the NIV translation notes: "The extra words in the KJV rendering of this passage are among the most poorly attested of all the disputed verses in the KJV and Textus Receptus. The addition is not found in any Greek manuscript or English translation until the sixteenth century, and most scholars agree that it is a forgery."

The Wiki article on the clause (and laugh all you want at my Wiki citation, but it's quite an excellent summary) notes that it was only the third edition of Erasmus' work, the "Received Text" (upon which the KJV is based), that put this clause into wide-spread usage. And Erasmus (fallible) made this change only begrudgingly. Catholicism later reversed its (fallible) decree that theologians could not "with safety" question the clause's authenticity (citing C.E. article on the Epistles of St. John, reversed by Pope Pius XI in 1927).

I set out writing this post thinking that whenever the NIV excludes or adds text to Scripture, it does so from questionable motives (based on previous observations made here, here, here, and here). But here I encountered a translation that is not easily reproached.

My point then?

1) That a passage of Holy Writ was in common usage for centuries, but may indeed be aberrant (i.e., fallible), adds to my skepticism that God would decree for (Holy) text to be our court of final appeal (as is understood in the Reformed circle, e.g., here). Did God give us an infallible text to be our court of final appeal, but then allow it to become corrupt over time? Does he preserve it only in relevant parts (in which case a Trinitarian proof-text would have to be described as irrelevant)?

2) The KJV-only crowd can be excessively passionate for their Biblicist position. This seems to flow out of necessity of the critiques I made just above in point 1. For the Word of God, the logos, to entirely subsist in the Bible's text, and therein to act as our court of final appeal, it must of course be perfect in every part, and continue preserved in this form. (For some thoughts on whether the Logos is equal to, or greater than the Bible, see my post here.)

E.g., Jack Chick's website defends the comma (this clause) as a Divinely-included part of the Bible. It notes that 1 John itself is absent from many extent Greek manuscripts. Tertullian, it tells us, quoted the verse in 200 AD when writing against Praxeas. Further, Eastern Greeks found it easier to deal with the troubling Sabellian heresy by simply removing this text from their own Bibles, because it refers to the persons of the Trinity as "one".

I was almost persuaded, until I looked up this text of Tertullian on CCEL. After much poking around, I found other sources who noted that Tertullian did not use this clause where one would expect to see him do so against Praxeas. Instead he used the less-direct John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one."). Further, the argument that the Greeks obliterated a proof-text of Trinitarian dogma to ease their dispute with the Sabellian's seems specious at best.

Jack Chick is a tall example, but not alone in defending Erasmus' Received Text as infallible (so necessarily defending the comma Johanneum). This crowd sees that there would be a need for Church as arbiter were our textual court of final appeal not self-authenticating.

God Repents Of Evil In Jonah 3:10

Here's some food for thought on the NIV translation of a confusing verse (and here the NIV seems in common with most other modern translations) (and -duh- all emphasis mine):

Jonah 3:10: "When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil [rah] ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction [rah] he had threatened. (NIV)"

And in the RSV: "When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God repented of the evil which he had said he would do to them; and he did not do it." The KJV is identical in relevant parts.

My thoughts are simple and predictable.

1) I am puzzled beyond words at this notion that God would repent of an evil that He had intended to perform. Now, this doesn't concern me, as I take "evil" here to mean something like calamity, injury, misery or distress (all part of Strong's definition). What's puzzling is that God repented of an act He had willed to perform. What of God's being without passions and "immutable" (WCOF, Ch. 2, I)? Of course, if we white-wash God's intentions down to a mere threatening, we have cured any conflict between Scripture and a certain confessional tradition.

2) What gives an editorial board or "translation" committee the power or authority to decide that the same word should be translated two different ways in the same verse? This, as a license, makes me tremendously uncomfortable, especially under the rubric of an all-sufficient and entirely perspicuous view of Bible. Let evil be evil, and let God repent away, if that is what the Spirit-breathed words tell us.

Doctoring Doctrine, Part III

I just finished reading an interesting Orthodox critique of sola Scriptura, written by convert Fr. John Whiteford, which a kind reader pointed out to me. In it I encountered yet another translation of questionable merit in the NIV.

In 2 Thes 2:15, we are told (in the NIV), "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." According to Fr. Whiteford, the Greek word translated here as "teachings", paradosis, literally means "what is transmitted", and should be translated as "tradition". The Greek Orthodox use this word to refer to their Sacred Traditions.

Where paradosis is treated negatively in scripture (e.g., Mark 3:8), the NIV translates it as "tradition" (as in, the dirty, bad stuff used by those dirty, bad Catholics and Orthodox). Where paradosis is treated positively in scripture (e.g., 2 Thes 2:15 supra, 1 Cor 11:2), the NIV has it translated as "teachings". The lesson then is clear: teachings are good, and tradition is bad. This makes a substantive impact on the meaning of infallible Writ, and definitely affected my attitude towards Apostolic churches for some time. I am glad to learn that "tradition" is spoken of positively in Scripture!

There is no need for the NIV to provide their attempted distinction between good and bad "tradition", because the text itself is sufficient. In each instance paradoseis is qualified as either "of men" or "from me (or us)". Here is a clear and easy rule: trust not teaching that is transmitted by vain men, but what is transmitted from the Apostles (whether it be directly or by epistle).

Separately, do check out Fr. Stephen’s Orthodox Blog for an excellent analysis of the Greek language in 1 John 1:6-7. He stresses a weakness endemic to English translations, where ‘koinonia’ with God should be treated as “communion” instead of “fellowship.” Wonderful stuff!

This all reminds me that we need qualified teachers bound to a normative standard to transmit the teachings of Sacred Scripture. (My apologies in advance for any botched conversions of Greek into our Roman alphabet.)

Doctoring Doctrine Through Dynamic Equivalency, Part II

I previously wrote a post on an unnerving addition made to Sacred Scriptures by the NIV translators in an effort to make a "necessary" clarification. Let me reiterate that I have not been part of the Anti-NIV bandwagon, and have generally been sick of hearing people in the PCA say "out with the old (NIV) and in with the new (ESV or NKJV)!" But I am coming to appreciate that substantive changes were made to Holy Writ, and this merits serious attention. The NIV is among the most widely published English translations of the Bible.

Consider Hebrews 11:11, where the NIV tells us that, "By faith Abraham, even though he was past age—and Sarah herself was barren—was enabled to become a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise."

Would you be at all surprised to learn that Abraham is not mentioned in this verse in the Greek? I was! The verse is literally something like this (and do check out the Interlinear yourself, since I'm not really qualified to do what I do in the remainder of this sentence), 'through faith also [the also modifies the preceding passage which IS about Abraham] barren Sarah was empowered for the laying down of seed, obtained beyond her season of prime, because she believed the one promising.'

Let me paraphrase these side-by-side to highlight what the NIV translators dodged:
NIV: Abraham's faith in the promisor enabled him, though he and Sarah were past age, to father.
Greek: Sarah's faith in the promisor enabled her to receive seed in spite of her age.

This is a substantive change to our infallible, God-breathed, solely sufficient Bible. Two main complaints come to mind, one minor but obvious, the other major but subtle:
1) Simple biology dictates that men do not experience menopause and become BARREN. Women do.
2) The NIV denies the reader the ability to appreciate that Sarah is an antetype of (that is, she prefigured) Mary. This verse in Hebrews does more than encourage our belief that the Old Testament prophesied the Messiah's coming just as He did; it tells us something substantive about Mary. It underlines that Mary was made able to receive the laying down of God's seed in her otherwise barren womb BY FAITH. The Reformed, I believe, are squeamish about this possibility, and so inclined to filter this verse. We say that Mary just happened to be the one chosen by God, without any regard for her personal merit (and indeed that the wicked Catholics and Orthodox are blasphemous for presuming contrary to predestinarianism that Mary was selected for her merit). Let the Scripture speak for itself.

Worth mention is that the NIV translators included an alternate reading of the verse in a footnote (without explanation), but it is an inadequate substitute, and it still misses the notion of being able to receive seed. Seed theology is not for the hogs.


Ironically, the Today's NIV, which "was produced to meet the ever-growing spiritual needs of today's generation of believers", reversed the text option and the footnote from the original NIV! To get a feel for the TNIV, check out the picture of it's cover. (Story? Are we referring to a Fable? Singular? It's one fable, not a collection of sacred fables? Of God? Not of redemption, but of God? We've encapsulated the Almighty in one story? Wow!)

To be continued...