Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 John 5
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
The Rec. has before Χριστός the article ὁ ; it is wanting in A G à (K: Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς ) and, according to the statement of Tisch. 7, in B; according to Tisch. 2, it is found in B (namely, e silentio collatorum); Buttmann has retained it, as well as Lachmann and Tisch. 2; Tisch. 7 has, however, rejected it.
Instead of μόνον , B reads μόνῳ ; a correction right according to the sense.
καὶ τῷ αἱματι ] According to A B G, and many others, Syr. Copt. (with Lachm. and Tisch.), καὶ ἐν τῷ αἵμ . is probably to be substituted. Other variations, as πνεύματι instead of αἵματι , etc., do not call for observation; the reading ὅτι Χριστός instead of ὅτι τὸ πνεῦμα need only be mentioned, which, because it is found in the Vulgate, is the basis of several old interpretations, although it is supported by scarcely any other authorities.—1Jn_5:7. Before τρεῖς , à has the article οἱ ; but in this it is alone.
The words that follow οἱ μαρτυροῦντες in the Rec.: ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ , ὁ πατήρ , ὁ λόγος καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι . (1Jn_5:8) Καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ , are rejected by Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. etc., and are considered spurious by almost all modern commentators (except Sander, Besser, Mayer).
They are wanting in all the Greek Codices, except in 173** (of the 16th cent.), 34, and 162; in the two latter, however, which also belong only to the 16th cent., the words: καὶ οἱ τρεῖς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν , and the articles: ὁ , ὁ , τό are omitted. They are wanting, further, in almost all the versions. With regard to the Latin Codices, they are only found in these after the 8th cent.; the Codex Amiatinus (circa 541), Harleianus (of the 7th cent.), and others do not contain them; the Codex Demidovianus has transposed them, thus: quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, spiritus, aqua et sanguis, et tres unum sunt. Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in coelo, pater, verbum, et spiritus.
Of the Greek Fathers not a single one mentions them, although reference to them would have been very convenient in the Arian controversies; just as little is there any reference to them in most of the older Latin Fathers, as Hilary, Lucifer. Ambrose, Faustinus, Jerome, Augustine, etc. An allusion to them has incorrectly been believed to exist in Tertullian in the passages: c. Prax. 25, and de Pudicit. 21; on the other hand, Cyprian (de unitate ecclesiae) seems to refer to them in the words: Dicit Dominus: Ego et Pater unum sumus; et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est: Et tres unum sunt. The passage in Phoebadius (4th cent.), contra Arianos, c. 45, refers rather to Tertullian than to John;[287] and in Eucherius (5th cent.), lib. formularum, c. 11, they are only found in interpolated handwriting. They are first certainly quoted by Vigilius (towards the end of the 5th cent.) in the books written under the name of Idacius, contra Varimadum, by Fulgentius, Cassiodorus (of the 6th cent.), and in many later ones since the 9th cent.
The peculiar quotation in Cyprian finds its explanation in the symbolical interpretation of the words: τὸ πνεῦμα , τὸ ὕδωρ , and τὸ αἷμα of the Trinity, which is also found in the Schol. in Matthaei: οἱ τρεῖς δὲ εἶπεν ἀρσενικῶς , ὅτι σὑμβολα ταῦτα τῆς τριάδος ; and in the Schol.: τουτέστι τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον καὶ ὁ πατὴρ καὶ αὐτὸς ἑαυτοῦ (and on ἕν εἰσιν : τουτέστι μία θεὁτης , εἷς Θεός ), and which Facundus (6th cent.) has rightly recognised when he says, pro defens. trium capit. L. i.e. 1 John 3 : tres sunt qui testimonium dant (in terra?) Spiritus, aqua et sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt … quod Joannis apostoli testimonium Cyprianus … de Patre, Filio et Spirita s. intelligit.[288]
As at first the three persons of the Trinity were substituted for the former words, as was the case with Cyprian, the idea arose afterwards that they were named by the apostle in addition to them, and some Fathers then quoted the passage as it had taken shape in accordance with this idea.
The weight of the evidence against the genuineness of the disputed words is so strong, that it is opposed to the fundamental principles of a sound and unprejudiced criticism to regard them as genuine.
In the 16th cent. the words are found in most of the Latin translations, as well as in some of the German translations which were made in accordance with the Vulgate. With regard to the editions of the Greek text, the Complutensian (1504–1514), following the Vulgate, accepted them; on the other hand, Erasmus in his earliest editions rejected them, as well as Aldus Manutius in the Venetian edition (1518); in his translation of 1521 and in the 3d edition of 1522, Erasmus, however, accepted them, adducing Cod. 34; Stephanus and Beza did the same; “the Rec. sanctioned the claim of this reading” (Braune). Luther never admitted them into his translation.[289] They are first found in the translations which appeared in Switzerland without Luther’s name; thus in the Zürich edition of Froschover 1529; the edition of 1531 also has them, but with the omission of “in earth,” and in small print; in that of 1533 they are printed in ordinary letters, whilst they are bracketed in later editions of 1540, 1545, 1549.[290] The Basel edition of Bryllinger, 1552, has them without brackets; the Zürich edition of Gessner, 1555, on the other hand, has them bracketed.
With regard to the editions published in Frankfurt on the Main, these words, according to the usual statement, are first found in the edition of 1593; this, however, is incorrect, for they previously occur in the quarto edition of 1582, though they are wanting in the octavo of Feyerabendt, 1582.[291] Among the editions printed in Wittenberg, the quarto edition of Zach. Lehmann, 1596, is probably the first that admitted the words; but again they are wanting in many later editions; the last which does not contain them is the quarto of 1620, which was published by Zach. Schürer at Joh. Richteris.
In the 17th cent. their genuineness was defended—certainly on insufficient and false grounds. After Richard Simon had declared himself against them, they were opposed in the 18th cent., especially by Thomas Emlyn (1715), Clarke (1738), Wetstein, Michaelis, Semler, Hezel, Griesbach, Matthaei. Bengel, on the contrary, defended them, but with the arbitrary assumption that the text originally ran: “ ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ · τὸ πνεῦμα κ . τ . λ . εἰς τὸ εν εἰσιν . 1Jn_5:8. καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ , ὁ πατήρ , ὁ λόγος καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν .” Compare especially: Bengel, Apparat. criticus; Griesbach, diatribe in loc. 1 Johann. 1Jn_5:7-8, as appendix of the 2d part of his edition; Semler in his hist. u. Krit. Sammlungen über die sog. Bewcissteilen in d. Dogm. St. I.; Rickli in his notes on this passage; Knittel, Neuc Kritiken über 1Jn_5:7-8.—1Jn_5:9. Instead of ἥν , according to G K, etc., Thph. Oecum., A B à , etc., Vulg. etc., Cyr. read ὅτι , which is recommended by Griesbach and accepted by Lachm. and Tisch.; ἥν seems to have arisen from 1Jn_5:10; Reiche, however, holds ἥν to be the original.—1Jn_5:10. ἔχει τὴν μαρτυρίαν ] Rec. according to B G K à , very many min. and vss. Thph. etc. (Tisch.); Lachm. (following A, Vulg.) adds ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ , which, however, seems to be an explanatory gloss.
Instead of ἙΑΥΤῷ , Tisch. reads: ΑὐΤῷ , following A G K; only a clerical variation. Τῷ ΘΕῷ , Rec. after B G K à , Syr. etc., Thph. (Tisch.). Against this A and the Vulg. have τῷ υἱῷ (Lachm.). This reading has arisen from the idea that this negative sentence must exactly correspond to the preceding: ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ .—1Jn_5:13. The Rec. runs: ὙΜῖΝ ΤΟῖς ΠΙΣΤΕΎΟΥΣΙΝ ΕἸς ΤῸ ὌΝΟΜΑ ΤΟῦ ΥἹΟῦ ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ , ἽΝΑ ΕἸΔῆΤΕ ὋΤΙ ΖΩῊΝ ἜΧΕΤΕ ΑἸΏΝΙΟΝ ΚΑῚ ἽΝΑ ΠΙΣΤΕΎΗΤΕ ΕἸς ΤῸ ὌΝΟΜΑ ΤΟῦ ΥἹΟῦ ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ . In A B à , etc., Vulg. Copt. Theb. etc., Cassiod. Bede, the addition: ΤΟῖς ΠΙΣΤΕΎΟΥΣΙΝ … ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ , is wanting after ὙΜῖΝ ; instead of the concluding ΚΑῚ ἽΝΑ Κ . Τ . Λ ., the reading in A, etc., almost all the vss. Cassiod. Bede is: ΟἹ ΠΙΣΤΕΎΟΝΤΕς ΕἸς ΤῸ ὌΝ . Κ . Τ . Λ .; in B, however, ΤΟῖς ΠΙΣΤΕΎΟΥΣΙΝ ; so also à *; in à 1, however: ΟἹ ΠΙΣΤΕΎΟΝΤΕς .
Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. have accepted the reading as it is in A, Buttmann as it is in B. Even if the common reading is to be justified according to the sense (de Wette, Sander, Reiche), yet its correctness does not therefore follow, as it has too little support from external authorities, and as ἽΝΑ ΠΙΣΤΕΎΗΤΕ seems to owe its origin to the passage, Gospel of Joh_20:31. The reading of B might, however, be preferable to the reading of A, since the former is not only the more difficult, but by it the origin of the Rec. can be more easily explained; so also Brückner; Braune prefers the reading of A, “as difficilior,” but the addition is more easily connected with ἔχετε than with the preceding ὑμῖν .
It is doubtful whether αἰώνιον had its original position before or after ἔχετε ; the former is attested by G K à , several min. Thph. Oec.; the latter by A B, etc., Vulg. etc. (Lachm. Tisch.).—1Jn_5:14. Instead of on ὅτι ἐάν τι , Lachm., following A, reads: ὅ , τι ἄν , which, however, has too little support.—1Jn_5:15. Lachmann’s reading: καὶ ἄν , instead of καὶ ἐάν , has too little evidence in B. A omits entirely the words: καὶ … ἡμῶν ; so also à *; à 1 reads: καὶ ἐὰν ἴδωμεν κ . τ . λ .
ὅ ἄν ] Rec. according to A K, etc., Oec. (Lachm.); instead of which B G à , and many others, Thph., have Ὅ ἘΆΝ (Tisch.). The reading in à *: ὍΤΙ ἘᾺΝ ἜΧΩΜΕΝ , is merely a mistake.
Instead of ΠΑΡʼ ΑὐΤΟῦ (A G K and several others), B à read ἈΠʼ ΑὐΤΟῦ (Lachm. Tisch.).—1Jn_5:16. Instead of ἼΔῌ , Rec. according to A B G K à , etc., Clem. Thph. Oec., Lachmann has accepted the reading εἰδῇ , presented only by the Vulg. and Latin Fathers. à * has αἰτήσεις καὶ δώσεις instead of the third person.—1Jn_5:18. Instead of ἀλλʼ , Tisch. and Buttm., following B, read ἀλλά . The reading αὐτόν in A* B, instead of ἑαυτόν , is only a clerical variation of the word.—1Jn_5:20. καὶ οἴδαμεν ] Rec. according to A, several min. etc. (Lachm. Buttm.); K à , etc. (according to Tisch., also B; contrary to which Buttm. states that ΚΑῚ ΟἼΔ . is found in B) have: ΟἼΔΑΜΕΝ ΔΈ (Tisch.); G reads merely ΟἼΔΑΜΕΝ .
Tisch. 7, following A B* G à , etc., reads ΓΙΝΏΣΚΟΜΕΝ , whilst the Rec., according to B** K, etc., is γινώσκωμεν (Tisch. 2, Lachm. Buttm.); the latter is probably a correction.
To τὸν ἀληθινόν , A, several min. vss. and Fathers add: Θεόν , which, though approved of by Lücke, de Wette, Reiche, is with justice not accepted by Lachm. and Tisch., since it may easily be recognised to be an interpolation. à * has τὸ ἀληθ .; à 1 however, τόν .
ἡ ζωὴ αἰώνιος ] According to A B à , many min. etc., the article ἡ , which is only supported by a few min., is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be deleted, inasmuch as it is either ζωὴ αἰώνιος , or ἡ ζωὴ ἡ αἰώνιος , or ἡ αἰώνιος ζωή (Joh_17:3), that always appears in John, but never ἡ ζωὴ αἰώνιος . The grounds which Frommann (p. 91 ff.) adduces for the retention of the article are not adequate.—1Jn_5:21. Instead of ἑαυτούς (Rec. according to A K, etc., Tisch.), B G à * ( à 1: ἙΑΥΤΟΎς ) read ἙΑΥΤΆ (Lachm.); this is probably a correction with reference to ΤΕΚΝΊΑ .
[287] The passages in Tertullian run thus: the first: Ceterum de meo sumet, inquit, sicut ipse de Patris. Ita connexus Patris in Filio et Filii in Paracleto, tres efficit cohaerentes alterum ex altero: qui tres unum sunt, non unus, quomodo dictum est. Ego et Pater unum sumus, ad substantiae unitatem, non ad numeri singularitatem; the second: Et ecclesia proprie et principaliter ipse est Spiritus, in quo est trinitas unius divinitatis, Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus. The passage in Phoebadius: Sic alius a Filio Spiritus, sicut alius a Patre Filius. Sic tertia in Spiritu, ut in Filio secunda Persona: unus tamen Deus omnia, quia tres unum sunt.
[288] Ebrard, indeed, also holds these words to be spurious, but thinks it probable that they existed in the MSS. which were available to Cyprian; this, however, is the less to be inferred from the fact that Vigilius had the passage in his N. T., since he quotes it in a corrupt sense.
[289] It is strange that the words are found explained in Luther’s second Commentary on the Epistle (Walch) without the slightest reference to their spuriousness, whilst in Luther’s first Commentary they are distinctly specified as spurious. This is no doubt explained by the fact that he based his second edition on the later text of Erasmus.
[290] According to Rickli, these brackets were first omitted in 1597; Ebrard, on the other hand, says that they were already omitted in the edition of 1561 which was in his possession.
[291] For these and the following notices I have to thank my friend Dr. Klose of Hamburg, who has personally examined these editions in the Hamburg Library. According to Panzer (Hist. d. Bibelübers. p. 492 ff.) and Mönckeberg (Beitr. z. Feststellung, etc., p. 152), the words are said to occur as early as in the Frankfurt edition of 1574, edited by Reffeler (published by John Feyerabendt); but this statement is incorrect. According to a written communication from Professor Dr. Keil, who has compared the edition in the Leipzig University Library, the passage referred to runs: “And it is the Spirit that bears witness that the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear record on earth, the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are one. If we receive the witness of men,” etc. The folio edition of Weyg. Hanen, 1574, also does not contain the words.