Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected
| PentecostalTheology.com
One of the ongoing attacks on modern translations has to do with the Trinitarian formula in 1 John 5:7–8. The accusation is that modern translators are dropping out the divinity of Christ from the Bible. I’ve now actually seen the factual evidence of why this is not true.
It is one of those charges that no matter how many times it is refuted — and it is easy to refute — the charges continue to circulate. I was in the manuscript library at Houston Baptist University this past weekend, the Dunham Bible Museum, and I was actually able to hold a second and third edition of Erasmus’ Greek text, page through it, and take pictures (without flash).
I checked out the longer ending of Mark (16:9–20), the pericope of the Woman Caught in Adultery (John 7:53–8:11, which is the worst name for a pericope in the Bible since the man was caught as well), and then went to 1 John 5 to check out the Comma Johanneum, as it is called. The words in italics below were added centuries after John wrote the epistle. The words are in the footnotes of the NIV, NASB, CSB, NET, and NLT (surprisingly not in the ESV or NRSV) but present in the KJV.
“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one” (1 John 5:7b–8a).
Thankfully, the doctrine of the Trinity does not depend on these verses; even though most modern translations put them in the footnotes, there are many places in our Bible that plant the seeds of the doctrine of the Trinity. But these verses in 1 John were not written by John, and it would be better to base doctrine on words that we know were written by the New Testament authors.
- The words occur in only eight Greek manuscripts, four in the text and four in the margin. The oldest of these manuscripts is from the tenth century, the others from the fourteenth century and later.
- The Comma Johanneum was not in Erasmus’ first or second edition, nor in the three manuscripts he used to edit his own text.
- They are not quoted by any of the early Greek Fathers until the fifth century, who would have certainly used them in their defense of the Trinity if the words were authentic.
- The words are absent from ancient translations.
- The words first appear in a fourth century Latin treatise, Liber apologeticus.
- They are not present in the Latin used by Tertullian, Cyprian, or Augustine.
- They are not in Jerome’s Latin Vulgate but were added in the ninth century.
So how did these words get into the Bible? Erasmus clearly states that they were not original, but due to church pressure he added them from a suspected forged Greek manuscript in his third edition of the Greek New Testament. This edition was basically the basis for the KJV.
And this takes me back to the Dunham Bible Museum. As you can see from the picture above, somebody wrote the formula into the margin of the second edition, and it was moved into the text of the third edition (see above). Modern Bibles do not leave the verse out; a few of the Greek texts behind the King James added them in. If it is wrong to subtract from God’s Word (and it is), so also it is wrong to add to God’s word. If we are going to criticize Bible translations, let’s do it accurately, with grace, knowing that all major Bible translations will lead you to the cross, and none will lead you to heresy.
Anonymous
It is one of those charges that no matter how many times it is refuted — and it is easy to refute — the charges continue to circulate. I was in the manuscript library at Houston Baptist University this past weekend, the Dunham Bible Museum, and I was actually able to hold a second and third edition of Erasmus’ Greek text, page through it, and take pictures (without flash).
I checked out the longer ending of Mark (16:9–20), the pericope of the Woman Caught in Adultery (John 7:53–8:11, which is the worst name for a pericope in the Bible since the man was caught as well), and then went to 1 John 5 to check out the Comma Johanneum, as it is called. The words in italics below were added centuries after John wrote the epistle. The words are in the footnotes of the NIV, NASB, CSB, NET, and NLT (surprisingly not in the ESV or NRSV) but present in the KJV.
“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one” (1 John 5:7b–8a).
Thankfully, the doctrine of the Trinity does not depend on these verses https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZcIjomtcIw
Anonymous
I tend to agree at least about the comma.
The manuscript evidence seems pretty clearcut.
Anonymous
Jamie Brown NO manuscript evidence EVER seems pretty clearcut IMHO
Anonymous
Dan Anthony William DeArteaga John Mushenhouse Philip Williams Dale M. Coulter Tony Richie Jamie Brown Jared Cheshire Duane L Burgess Kyle Williams But these verses in 1 John were not written by John, and it would be better to base doctrine on words that we know were written by the New Testament authors.
The words occur in only eight Greek manuscripts, four in the text and four in the margin. The oldest of these manuscripts is from the tenth century, the others from the fourteenth century and later.
The Comma Johanneum was not in Erasmus’ first or second edition, nor in the three manuscripts he used to edit his own text.
They are not quoted by any of the early Greek Fathers until the fifth century, who would have certainly used them in their defense of the Trinity if the words were authentic.
The words are absent from ancient translations.
The words first appear in a fourth century Latin treatise, Liber apologeticus.
They are not present in the Latin used by Tertullian, Cyprian, or Augustine.
They are not in Jerome’s Latin Vulgate but were added in the ninth century.
Anonymous
Troy Day nor does Matthew 28:19 appear in any pre-Nicene text, and Eusebius seems to be quoting a different text in his earliest references to this verse!
Anonymous
Philip Williams Matthew 28:19 – Baptism In Whose Name? Furthermore, it is important to keep in mind that later manuscripts are copied from earlier ones. Thus, a later, or even medieval manuscript, could preserve a very early reading. Again, we have no evidence of an alternative version of Matthew 28.19 in any of these manuscripts.
For the shorter reading hypothesis to be correct, someone would have had to destroy all of the manuscripts containing the “original” version of Matthew 28.19 and replace them with new ones with the longer reading. This is quite a conspiracy theory that requires a level of control that did not exist at that time.
Anonymous
Troy Day there are no manuscripts of this verse earlier than the ones prepared by Eusebius at Constantine’s instruction. These are the same manuscripts that delete most of Mark 16 and much of John 8, clearly the work of Origen who Eusebius and Jerome admired.
Anonymous
Philip Williams it appears that NOT @everyone shares your view
Anonymous
Troy Day and that being contrary to the evidence and to the truth means nothing other than explain how you and they determine your kind of “truth.” It’s no different than how the world determines its “truth.”
Anonymous
Troy Day amen
Anonymous
Troy Day I’m Gonna stick to the Scrolls the majority of the scrolls have it.
Anonymous
Junior Beasley what Scrolls would those be?
Anonymous
Didache (a.d. 60-150) chapter 7.1-4
“Now about baptism: this is how to baptize. Give public instruction on all these points, and then baptize in running water, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. If you do not have running water, batpize in some other. If you cannot in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, then pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Before baptism, moreover, the one who baptizes and the one being baptized must fast, and any others who can. And you must tell the one being baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand.”
First Apology by Justin Martyr (a.d. 155) chapter 61
“…Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are born again, for they then receive washing in water in the name of God the Father and Master of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. For Christ also said, ‘Except you are born again, you will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.’…”
Against Heresies by Irenaeus (a.d. 180) book 3 chapter 17.1
“…And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, he said to them, ‘Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’…”
On Baptism by Tertullian (a.d. 198) chapter 13
“For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: ‘Go,’ He saith, ‘teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’ The comparison with this law of that definition, ‘Unless a man have been reborn of water and Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of the heavens,’ has tied faith to the necessity of baptism.”
Anonymous
Troy Day earliest manuscripts of these father. Isaac Newton and William Whiston, though I don’t agree with their Arianism, were certain these writings had been edited.
Anonymous
Philip Williams Didache (a.d. 60-150) chapter 7.1-4
Anonymous
Troy Day like that one was somehow overly and not edited?
Anonymous
Philip Williams seems pretty authentic in its original Greek https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH8MOb01qJA
Anonymous
Troy Day would be more authentic if the original baptizing them in my name, and more in line with what they actually did in the book of Acts.
Anonymous
Philip Williams well John Mushenhouse and myself have studied the earliest authentic originals if anything closer to the so called autographs
Anonymous
Troy Day the one that Matthew penned?
Anonymous
The traditional reading of Matthew 28.19 was alive and well before a.d. 325 and people knew about it. Furthermore, I have not found any controversy over the authenticity of this text anywhere. This is mounting up to be a really solid case: not only do ALL extant Greek manuscripts with Matthew 28.19 in them contain the traditional reading, but all of the church fathers in the second and third century that quote or allude to it use the traditional version.
Anonymous
Troy Day earliest manuscripts of the writings of these fathers? Isaac Newton and William Whiston, though I don’t agree with their Arianism, were certain these writings had been edited. They also edited out their premillennialism!
Anonymous
Philip Williams WHAT earliest manuscripts? Isaac Newton and William Whiston are church fathers to you now?
Anonymous
Troy Day they were scholars of ancient Greek manuscripts. Aren’t you acquainted with Whiston’s Josephus?
Anonymous
Philip Williams were they ALIVE well before a.d. 325 ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZcIjomtcIw
Anonymous
Troy Day are you making an argument based on the authority of someone who agrees with you?
Anonymous
Philip Williams MOUNCE? agrees with me? you are a FUNNY man
Anonymous
Where does SCRIPTURE say that the man was caught in John 8?
Anonymous
We do not need that verse to find the eternal Triunity of the Godhead in Scripture.
Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?
This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
For there are three that bear witness:
the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
Anonymous
I just looked up the Gospel of Mark in the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible. They were the first to separate 500 years before the Great Schism (their canon has 84 books, instead of 66).
Mark 16 is complete in their version.
Anonymous
Ken Van Horn 500 years before the Great Schism is about 5 century AD – we are talking MSS dated 1-2 c. AD
Anonymous
Troy Day https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/was-mark-16-9-20-originally-mark-gospel/
Anonymous
Ken Van Horn as I explained to Dan Wallace, these passages about picking up snakes and drinking poison could never have been added if not already there. One can be certain that the original manuscripts contained these verses.
Anonymous
Philip Williams these passages about picking up snakes and drinking poison could never have been added if not already there? You mean like a bunch of other passages that have been added through 2000 years?
Anonymous
Troy Day as I mentioned to Dan Wallace, the first principle of text criticism is the most difficult reading is the original one.
Anonymous
Philip Williams you mention to @dan wallace what and why does it matter? the post is about Erasmus about 13-14c AFTER the autographs. He had NO MSS to compare for 1, 2, and 3rd, ed. of his GNT [period] – what criticism are you applying to having NO MSS to prove your point ?
Anonymous
Troy Day obviously we are referring to the supposed longer ending of Mark 16, which every true Pentecostal knows is part of the original.
Anonymous
Troy Day you know that Scott Carroll had persuaded Dan that he had in his possession a very early text of the gospel of Mark. We were holding our breath as to whether this text included Mark 16.
Anonymous
Philip Williams complete nonsense as usual http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2017/07/new-details-emerge-about-first-century.html I;ve studied P52 long time ago many moons ago and I can assure you of its very very early date per the internal evidence
Anonymous
Troy Day wait! Scott Carroll was on a panel interviewing me in October 2015. He must have been busy that month.
Anonymous
Troy Day that was from the same conference where Scott Carroll was on my panel.
Anonymous
Philip Williams The news of Carroll’s “earliest known text” began to make headlines in February 2012, when Dan Wallace used a debate with Bart Ehrman to announce the existence of a fragment of Mark’s Gospel that an unnamed, world-class paleographer had dated to the first century. The announcement surprised Ehrman and the audience. Allegedly, this item was part of a private collection and was to be published shortly thereafter. Years came and went, and no first-century Mark fragment was ever published. Wallace could not give more information because he had signed a non-disclosure agreement that barred him from speaking about the manuscript until it had been published. that was back in 2017 by 2022 it was largely debunked As I quickly put the pieces together, it became clear that this tiny manuscript, designated P.Oxy. 5345 (or P137), was the “First-Century Mark.” The earlier dating was simply incorrect, and there had been confusion as to who owned the manuscript and how it would be published. It was not owned by the Greens and it was not from the first century after all. A great deal of the speculation was simply wrong.
Anonymous
Troy Day that sounds like something from my old friend Jerry Pattengale. Are you plagiarizing Jerry?
Anonymous
nope – perry actually promoted it cir. 2012 quite heavily JUST like he promoted the MS they bought on eBay for $99 This elijah hixson who wrote As of November 2019, the EES had “identified around 120 pieces which appear to be missing,” and in February 2021, they reported that “The police investigation in the UK is continuing into the unauthorized removal of texts from the EES collection and their sale to Hobby Lobby and others.” Someone had been trying to pawn the EES’s papyri from right under their noses. The prime suspect is none other than Wallace’s world-class paleographer. The matter has not been resolved, and a police investigation is ongoing so we are limited as to what more we could say. At the time of writing, Obbink has been living in a houseboat in England and avoiding authorities.
Overhyped expectations can result in undervaluing the actual evidence.
Once the cat was out of the bag, the popular-level response to “First-Century Mark” led to unjustified expectations from several sources. P137 is still an amazing discovery! It is probably the oldest manuscript of Mark in existence. It is almost certainly the oldest manuscript of Mark 1:7–9, 16–18. Nevertheless, because the expectation was for a first-century manuscript, some were disappointed. Although he has been rightly criticized for announcing the unpublished and unverifiable “First-Century Mark” at a debate, Wallace was right to admit his mistake once the fragment was published and he was no longer bound by the non-disclosure agreement (NDA). Wallace apologized for his actions, both to Ehrman “and to everyone else for giving misleading information about this discovery.”
The Museum of the Bible has also owned its mistakes and expedited the process of returning items known to be acquired for their collection under the seller’s pretense. Claims that P137 had been offered for sale were not initially taken seriously by the EES (and not without reason). It wasn’t until Michael Holmes, acting on behalf of the Museum of the Bible, shared with them the purchase agreement for some papyri and a handwritten list describing their contents in June 2019