Ehrman on a variant reading of 1 John 4:2-3

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 13853
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Ehrman on a variant reading of 1 John 4:2-3

Post by Giuseppe »

1 John 4:2-3
2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already

According to Ehrman:

https://books.google.it/books?id=T7zDCg ... 34&f=false

, in a later manuscript the same passage is reported so:

2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 and every spirit that looses Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already

To make it an attack against separationist christians.

My question: isn't the passage as we have it normally already per se an attack against separationism?

If your answer is no, do you think that who is attacked are docetists?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 13853
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Ehrman on a variant reading of 1 John 4:2-3

Post by Giuseppe »

In the same link above I read that according to Ehrman the following passage

Hebrews 2:9
9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man

...read originally so:

9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he without God should taste death for every man

...meaning pure separationism by an author who surely adored the Jewish god.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply