The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Change in NRSVue text note on 1 John 5:7

NRSV-1989 1 John 5:7 text note:

"A few other authorities read (with variations) 7There are three that testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8And there are three that testify on earth:"

NRSVue-2021 1 John 5:7 text note:

"5.7 Other ancient authorities read (with variations) There are three that testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth:"

NRSV - "A few other authorities" versus NRSVue - "Other ancient authorities"

Has modern scholarship softened its dogmatic charge that the KJV is unsupported become less dogmatic? The NRSVue drops the word "few" and adds the word "ancient".

Out of curiosity, I did a search on the question on one of the AI search engines which produced the following result:

"The scholarly support for the KJV translation of 1 John 5:7 is complex and multifaceted, involving historical, textual, and theological considerations.

Historical Preservation: The passage is believed to have been preserved by faithful Christians despite its absence in many Greek manuscripts before the 1600s. This preservation is attributed to the efforts of early Christians who wrote down doctrines they considered Christian and Biblical, including the Trinitarian statement found in 1 John 5:7.

Textual Evidence: Despite the absence of 1 John 5:7 in many Greek manuscripts, it is found in some Latin manuscripts and was included in the lectionaries of the Greek Orthodox Church and printed Greek Bibles since the 16th century. This evidence suggests that the passage was recognized and included in the Greek text by the Eastern Orthodox Church, which would not have done so based on Latin translations.

Theological Significance: The passage is significant theologically, affirming the doctrine of the Trinity. Its inclusion in the KJV and other early translations is seen as a reflection of the early church's belief in the Trinitarian nature of God. The omission of the passage in modern translations, including the ASV, RSV, NASV, NIV, TEV, Living Bible, the Message, New Living Translation, the CEV, and the Holman Christian Standard Bible, is seen by some as a departure from the original text.

[ Version. It was also present in the European Italic or Old Latin version used by Bible believers in Europe. Theodore Beza and other scholars of the 16th and 17th centuries testified to the authenticity of 1 John 5:7 based on Greek manuscript evidence available to them at the time.

Controversy and Revision: The inclusion of 1 John 5:7 in the KJV and its omission in later English translations reflects ongoing debates about the authenticity and theological implications of the passage. The omission in the English Revised Version of 1881 and subsequent translations is attributed to textual criticism and the desire to align the text more closely with the "Majority" Greek text, which does not include the passage.

In summary, while 1 John 5:7 is not present in many Greek manuscripts before the 1600s, its inclusion in the KJV and other early translations is supported by historical preservation, textual evidence, theological significance, and the recognition of the passage in early church texts and manuscripts. The controversy surrounding its omission in modern translations highlights the ongoing debates about the authenticity and theological implications of the passage."
https://www.phind.com/search?cache=m077suvj47mropje5zgze39a

John Gill (1697-1771) in his commentary on 1 John 5:7 gives an early defense of the KJV rendering.

The controversy over 1 John 5:7 will continue to the end of time. There are good arguments for its inclusion or exclusion on both sides. In my view, it doesn't matter since the doctrine of the trinity does not depend upon this one isolated passage but rather its perspicuity obvious and thus the doctrine of the Trinity is clearly taught in Scripture throughout the OT and NT. I take the same perspective in regard to the endless debates on the TR and other textual evidences (p.s. The KJV Only argument is specious on its face and not worthy of anyone's serious consideration). NOT ONE doctrine is omitted from either source materials but they are in full agreement. What people should be far more concerned is what TRANSLATION method is used for non-original languages. There are two schools of thought; Formal Equivalence and Dynamic :Equivalence. The Formal Equivalence is incontrovertibly the one which is faithful to the Scripture itself, i.e., every jot and tittle is important and must be faithfully translated as much as it is possible to each particular language. The Dynamic Equivalence method holds that the "meaning" of a text is most important. Even the average person if the/she ponders this statement non-critically can see clearly that a "meaning" is only derived from the individual words and the grammar with which it was originally written.