1 John 5:7. 'For there are three who bear witness in heaven: The Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit:?

Question

...and these three are one. These words are not found in the original Greek manuscripts and have only uncertain Latin attestation before the fourth century. It is now known that this was a marginal note that has been incorporated into the text. Although, this is not a question, I would welcome any intelligent comments or thoughts on this statement to further my research.

Answer 1

It may first be noted that the words “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” (KJ) found in older translations at 1 John 5:7 are actually spurious additions to the original text. A footnote in The Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic translation, says that these words are “not in any of the early Greek MSS [manuscripts], or any of the early translations, or in the best MSS of the Vulg[ate] itself.” A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, by Bruce Metzger (1975, pp. 716-718), traces in detail the history of the spurious passage. It states that the passage is first found in a treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus, of the fourth century, and that it appears in Old Latin and Vulgate manuscripts of the Scriptures, beginning in the sixth century. Modern translations as a whole, both Catholic and Protestant, do not include them in the main body of the text, because of recognizing their spurious nature.

The oldest Greek manuscript of the Christian Scriptures is, in the judgment of many, the Vatican Manuscript No. 1209, written in the first half of the fourth century. In our own copy of this Greek manuscript as edited by Cardinal Angelus Maius in 1859, he inserted the Greek words into the Manuscript copy but added a sign of a footnote at the end of the preceding verse. The footnote is in Latin and, translated, reads:

From here on in the most ancient Vatican codex, which we reproduce in this edition, the reading is as follows: “For there are three that give testimony, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three are for one. If the testimony” etc. There is therefore lacking the celebrated testimony of John concerning the divine three persons, which fact was already long known to critics.

Says Dr. Edgar J. Goodspeed, the Bible translator, on 1 John 5:7: “This verse has not been found in Greek in any manuscript in or out of the New Testament earlier than the thirteenth century. It does not appear in any Greek manuscript of 1 John before the fifteenth century, when one cursive has it; one from the sixteenth also contains the reading. These are the only Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in which it has ever been found. But it occurs in no ancient Greek manuscript or Greek Christian writer or in any of the oriental versions. . . . It is universally discredited by Greek scholars and editors of the Greek text of the New Testament.” So in our examination of John’s writings as to who the Word and God are, we cannot proceed on the basis of what the spurious words in 1 John 5:7 say.

Answer 2

The earliest debate that we can find about 1 John 5:7 goes back to the Council of Nicea around 325 AD. This was the council that meet during the time of Constantine for the purpose of officially recognizing the canon of the New Testament (what books would be in the NT) and to decide the issue of the humanity (not the deity) of Jesus.

There was debate about the doctrine of the Trinity as part of the discussion on the humanity of Jesus. When one of the leaders objected to the doctrine, 1 John 5:7 quoted to end the debate. So apparently it already existed at that time.

The one who objected ordered a search through the manuscripts of the other churches at that time to confirm whether they all contained that reference are not. According to the records of the Council, they did.

However, the objector would be the person put in charge of the copying of the first 50 New Testaments under Constantine. Surprisingly (or more likely not), that verse is missing from the one surviving copy of the Bible and the one surviving copy of a copy of that Bible. (Wonder where it suddenly went?).

As the Vulgate translation would be made a generation later with the one of those NT as the main manuscript from which the translation was made, it is not surprising that it also lacks the verse.

However, if you look at the manuscripts from the 5th and 6th century, you will find the verse returning either into the main text or as a marginal note. Scholars have been unable to find a single origin for the addition. Rather it appears in manuscripts all across the world at about the same time. If someone where to have added the verse (say in Rome), you would expect to see it appearing around Rome first, then a few years later in countries bordering Italy, then on to the rest of Europe, then into Africa and Asia. That is not what happened. It appeared in dozens of isolated pockets all around the world.

The most logical assumption is that the various churches were looking back at the older manuscripts and finding the words there, and restoring them.

So there is both historical evidence (in the records of the Nicean Fathers) and textual evidence (in the appearance of those words all across the Christian world at once) to argue that they were around earlier then 325 AD, and most likely part of the original writing.

Answer 3

KJ reads: “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.” (Dy also includes this Trinitarian passage.) However, NW does not include the words “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth.” (RS, NE, TEV, JB, NAB also leave out the Trinitarian passage.) Regarding this Trinitarian passage, textual critic F. H. A. Scrivener wrote: “We need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by St. John: that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 8: that from the Latin they crept into two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the printed Greek text, a place to which they had no rightful claim.”—A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (Cambridge, 1883, third ed.), p. 654. As you can see the scripture was altered to fit the teaching of the trinity yet earlier manuscripts have clarified that this was not the actual rendering and have been removed from many translations More clarification How did water, blood, and spirit bear witness to the fact that “Jesus is the Son of God”? Water was a witness bearer because when Jesus was baptized in water, Jehovah himself expressed His approval of him as His Son. (Matt. 3:17) Jesus’ blood, or life, given as “a corresponding ransom for all,” also showed that Jesus is God’s Son. (1 Tim. 2:5, 6) And the holy spirit testified that Jesus is the Son of God when it descended upon him at his baptism, enabling him to go “through the land doing good and healing all those oppressed by the Devil.”—John 1:29-34; Acts 10:38.

Answer 4

You could research it out through Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, as that will give indication, I guess, of first manuscripts that was in. It gives a version of the original Greek, with comments on all significant variations, that is the best scholars can currently come up with. Newer translations don't include that verse (in my readings) as they tend to use the 'Alexandrian text type' manuscripts, which are generally have the earliest dating. KJV was based on Erasmus' original assembly of a Greek New Testament from just 6 manuscripts. Modern scholars can do translations more thoroughly, and have more manuscripts available.

There are loads of other statements about Father, Son and Holy Spirit in John and 1 John of course, and other gospels and letters.

Answer 5

Well, you said it pretty well. It is generally absent from Byzantine manuscripts. Erasmus did not find it in any Byzantine manuscripts when he made the first printed Greek New Testament, but local ecclesiastical authorities pressured him to include based on a dubious Greek manuscript that they just happened to find in a monetary. It was thus added to the Textus Receptus, which was used as the source text for the King James Version. Modern translations omit it, for obvious reasons.

Its earliest appearance is in the 4th century Liber Apologeticus (c. 385 BC). But the oldest New Testament manuscript to include the passage (as a part of the text) is from the 14th century.

Answer 6

If God was a Trinity then the doctrine would have to backed up by the rest of the Bible.

Jesus was born a Jew. But the Jews were unitarian and still are. If Jesus really believed 'the truth will set you free', he surely would have specifically corrected the Jewish thinking on the identity of God, but he didn't.

Jesus said at John 14:28 "the Father is greater than I am", so they can't be co-equal.

The Father knows something the Son does not know. Matthew 24:36 says: "Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father."

Answer 7

OK, and please explain these texts which clearly mention the Father, Son and Holy Spirit...

Matthew 3:16–17 "As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, 'This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.' " (also Mark 1:10–11; Luke 3:22; John 1:32)

Matthew 28:19 "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"

2 Corinthians 13:14 "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with all of you."

Luke 1:35 "The angel answered and said to her, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.' "

Hebrews 9:14 "How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!"

Answer 8

Dear pierce,

If you were to quote the brilliant theologian of our day or to cite the most prestigious Seminary, I would still not believe you. God will protect His word. He says in Luke 21:33, "Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away."

The original Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek manuscripts that the KJV Bible was translated from are still here today.

You see satan (yes, he is real) is the father of lies. ALL the other Bible have been tampered with but the KJV is the most accurate translation. The wonderful thing is that if we have difficulty with a particular passage, we can use the Concordance to got back and see what the original word was. The Strong's Concordance and the Young's Concordances were developed using the KJV Bible and so are of great benefit in Bible study. ALL the newer versions have been tampered with.

In Revelation 12:15 we read, "And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood." The "serpent" represents satan and the "flood" represents all the false gospels (and tainted Bibles) that he tries to deceive the true believers with. You are being used by satan to bring doubt on God's word. You are in BIG trouble.


"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

Answer 9

It is evident to me that the Bible was given to us as it is, even with it's numerous translations and interpretations. It is literally impossible for one person to say that he or she knows it all, or that even only a select group of people do. For this, then, we shall all go to hell for believing that the Bible says that we most definitely will go there, if we fail to repent of our sins. Does anyone therefore have a better remedy for us than that of the cross? Is there an interpretation that you will dare use to say that this isn't a true doctrine; the doctrine of crucifixion and resurrection? If you dare believe the scriptures, yet adhere to your own view of them, then the whole world has permission to do the same, and no one, for that matter would know for sure what the truth really is, because no matter how the Bible slices it, you will piece it together as you see fit. May the Lord have mercy on you sir. To believe one thing in scripture is to believe it all, and if there be any uprooting of the word of God to be translated in a manner contrary to what we were given, then you are most miserable of all. If it were true, that so many things don't mean what the Bible says they mean, then no one could be held accountable for their sins; Jesus said; if you were blind, you would have no sin, but now because you say "we see", your sin remains; you are without excuse; you who twist the word just for your own benefit. We are either sinners in need of a savior; and if we are, then there is no way that our savior; loving us so much, would allow for us to be so confused as to the truth.

Answer 10

You are about 1000 years off. The Johannine Comma was unknown before the 14th century.

The divinity of Jesus is without question in the scriptures however with numerous references (40+ references in John alone and discussed by Peter, Paul, Matthew, Luke...). That three "persons" are ALL described as the ONE GOD is a complex theological issue, one which humans are probably unable to properly comprehend...

I would never dream of trying to limit the nature of God to what I an able to understand and those who do really need to study the theology of scripture -- which is clearly NOT something which can be stated in such simplistic terms as the "anti-trinitarians" attempt.

Is "Trinity" right? I think it is a dim, poor picture at best, but it is much better than focusing on the things God "can't do" or can't be." To the Christian, "God" and "can't" just don't go together.