1 John 5:7 (part 2)
Noted Trinitarian scholar Daniel B. Wallace admits the same:
https://bible.org/article/textual-problem-1-john-57-8#_ftnref3
And respected (and highly
trinitarian) New Testament Bible scholar Dr. A. T. Robertson writes:
“For there are three who bear witness (hoti treis eisin hoi marturountes). At this point the Latin Vulgate gives the words in the Textus Receptus [Received Text], found in no Greek MS. [Manuscript] save two late cursives (162 in the Vatican Library of the fifteenth century, 34 of the
sixteenth century in Trinity College, Dublin). Jerome [famed trinitarian, 342-420 A. D.] did not have it.
Cyprian applies the language of the Trinity [ ? - - see UBS Commentary below] and
Priscillian [excommunicated 380 A. D., executed 385 A. D.] has it. Erasmus did not have it in his first edition, but rashly offered to insert it if a single Greek MS. had it and [ms.] 34 was produced with the insertion,
as if made to order. The spurious addition is:
en toi ouranoi ho pater, ho logos kai to hagion pneuma kai houtoi hoi treis hen eisin kai treis eisin hoi marturountes en tei gei (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and the three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth). The last clause belongs to verse 8. The fact and the doctrine of the Trinity do not depend on this
spurious addition.” - p. 240, Vol. VI,
Word Pictures in the New Testament, Broadman Press, 1960.
The highly respected (and
trinitarian) United Bible Societies has published a commentary on the New Testament text. It discusses 1 John 5:5-7 as follows:
“After
μαρτυροῦντες [“bearing witness”] the Textus Receptus [Received Text] adds the following:
εν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα. καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἐν εἰσι. (8)
καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες εν τῇ γῆ. That these words are
spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is
certain in the light of the following considerations.
“(A) EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. (1) The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except four, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. These four manuscripts are ms. 61 [this is ms. 34 in the earlier numbering system used by Robertson above], a sixteenth century manuscript formerly at Oxford, now at Dublin; ms. 88, a twelfth century manuscript at Naples, which has the passage written
in the margin by a modern hand; ms. 629 [ms. 162, Robertson], a fourteenth or fifteenth century manuscript in the Vatican; and ms. 635, an eleventh century manuscript which has the passage
written in the margin by a seventeenth century hand.
“(2) The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian [certainly at the Nicene Council of 325]). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.
“(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of
all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (
a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian
Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (
b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied A. D. 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before A. D. 716]) or (
c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vercellensis [ninth century]).
“The earliest instance of the passage is in a fourth century
Latin treatise entitled
Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic
Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. ....
“(B) INTERNAL PROBABILITIES. (1) As regards transcriptional probability, if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.
“(2) As regards intrinsic probability, the passage makes an awkward break in the sense.” - pp. 716-718,
A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, 1971.
Notice the comments concerning this disputed passage found in the respected trinitarian reference work,
The Expositor's Greek Testament:
It says in a note for 1 John 5:7 (as found in the Received Text and the KJV):
"A Latin interpolation,
certainly spurious. (I) Found in
no Gk. MS. [Greek Manuscript] except two
late minuscules - 162 (Vatican), 15th c., the Lat. Vg. [Latin Vulgate] Version with a Gk. text adapted thereto; 34 (Trin. Coll., Dublin), 16th c. (2) Quoted by
none of the Gk Fathers.
Had they known it, they would have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian [325 A.D.]). (3) Found in
none of the early versions - in Vg. but not as it [originally] left the hands of St. Jerome." - p. 195, Vol. 5, Eerdmans Publishing Co.
The trinitarian authors of
So Many Versions? (who were very biased in favor of trinitarian interpretations in other parts of their book) were so upset by this modern Bible’s use of clearly spurious passages such as this that they continued:
“The brochure advertising this revision [the
NKJV] gives as the purpose of the project “to preserve and improve the purity of the King James Version.” To improve the purity would surely include the removal from the text of any scribal additions that were not a part of the autographs [original writing]. No devout reader of the Bible wants any portion of the sacred text as penned by the original authors removed.
But neither should he want later additions, in which some passages have crept into the text, published as part of the Word of God.” - p. 294,
So Many Versions?, Zondervan Publ., 1983 ed.
I see that my trinitarian-edited and published King James Version, Collins Press, 1955 (with center column of notes and references) also gives no indication whatsoever of the clear, spurious nature of 1 John 5:7! This is in spite of the fact that the original translators of 1611, themselves, and all the many revisers for the last
380+ years have known that this verse was not added to the scriptures until many hundred years after John wrote this letter.
Trinitarian scholar Robert Young
[Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible; Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible; etc.] writes in his
Concise Critical Commentary:
“These words are wanting [lacking] in all the Greek MSS except two, in all the
oldest Ancient Versions, and in all the quotations of v. 6-8 in the ancient Fathers before A.D. 475” - Note for 1 John 5:7, Baker Book House, 1977.
Noted Lutheran scholar and Bible translator, William F. Beck (trinitarian, of course) states in a footnote for 1 John 5:7 in his
The New Testament in the Language of Today, 1964 printing:
“Our oldest manuscripts do not have vv. 7b-8a: “in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three testifying on earth.” Early in the 16th century an editor translated these words from Latin manuscripts and inserted them in his Greek New Testament. Erasmus took them from this Greek New Testament and inserted them in the third edition (1522) of his Greek New Testament. Luther used the text prepared by Erasmus. But even though the inserted words taught the Trinity,
Luther ruled them out and never had them in his translation. In 1550 Bugenhagen objected to these words “on account of the truth.” In 1574 [about 30 years after Luther’s death] Feyerabend, a printer,
added them to Luther’s text, and in 1596 [in spite of the fact that scholars
knew it was spurious] they appeared in the Wittenberg copies.
They were not in Tyndale’s or Coverdale’s Bible or in the Great Bible [which were used by the
KJV translators, and often copied nearly verbatim in many places by them].”
The following modern
trinitarian Bibles do
not include the spurious words found in the
KJV at 1 Jn 5:7:
Revised Standard Version; New Revised Standard Version; American Standard Version; New International Version; New American Standard Bible; Living Bible; Good News Bible; New English Bible; Revised English Bible; New American Bible (1970 and 1991 editions);
Jerusalem Bible; New Jerusalem Bible; Modern Language Bible; Holy Bible: Easy-to-Read Version; An American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed); and translations by Moffatt; C. B. Williams; William Beck; Phillips; Rotherham; Lamsa; Byington; Barclay; etc.
WHY do trinitarian apologists
continue to use this commonly known spurious “scripture”?
WHY do so many trinitarians feel it necessary to “preserve” this clearly
dishonest King James Version tradition in not only the most-used
King James Version itself (which has been revised
many times with
thousands of changes in its 400-year history while still leaving this spurious verse), but even in at least three modern translations (
NKJV, KJIIV, NLV)?
