Explicit Reference to The Trinity?

Bavarian State Library

If you are KJV Only you don't want to read any further. Text critic, Daniel Wallace finds the Comma Johanneum in the margins of an eleventh century parchment manuscript at the BSB. The margin notes, containing the reference, are very similar to what may have been "made to order" for Erasmus in 1520.

Wallace says, "The original wording of 1 John 5.7–8 in the manuscript at th e BSB reads, For there are three that testify, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and the three are in agreement. This is unremarkable as it is, since this is the wording of the original text of this passage. But there is a note written above the text in the upper margin which reads, There are three who testify in heaven: The Father, Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. The note is written in a much later hand—at the earliest during the second half of the sixteenth century."

Wallace wisely does not feel the Trinity rises or falls on the Comma; however, is this not an obvious Trinitarian bias emerging in the translation process? 

I for one am glad this discovery was found and pray that translators strive for excellence in translation, careful not to impose Trinitarian notions where they are not "explicitly" referenced, in the Text itself. I believe the references of distinction must center upon the Incarnation as we protect the divinely revealed first principle of absolute monotheism as well as His eternal essence. 

Personally, I find that there is evident bias by the Trinitarian translators (c.f. Rev 5:6). I am no expert in the field of textural criticism nor the original languages but it is fairly easy to deduce certain conclusions on the evolution and development of the Trinitarian doctrine.

In addition,  and to some "more importantly", this margin note on the Comma (1 John 5:8) is often used to support KJV Onlyism since they are committed, whether they realize it or not, to the Textus Receptus. Many feel that the Comma was an interpolation, something added to the copy or manuscript by a "later hand". It eventually made its way into common translation, see KJV 1611/Erasmus/Froy, etc.

Although some have retained it many modern translations omit the Comma and place it into the margin or footnotes. Personally, I do not feel the Comma Johanneum is a part of the originally inspired writings of Scripture. This should not cause us to fear or abandon but to draw us closer to God's Word and create an hunger to KNOW more about what He has said.

The problem is that we are English speaking folk attempting to read a document dually authored by God and written by about 40 Jewish men and probably one Gentile (Luke). It is inspired or "theopnuestos" - breathed out by God but in the process of moving the letters of those documents to another language it makes bias possible. Interpretation is inherently present. I think the bias is actual in reference to the Comma.

Click Here To Read Entire Article from CSNTM.

Click Here To Read Another Article by J.N. Anderson on the Comma Johanneum.

Why I Think the King James Bible Is Not The Best Translation for Today by Daniel B. Wallace (DTS)

Daniel B. Wallace from Dallas Theological Seminary wrote an article entitled "Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is Not The Best Translation for Today" Therein he states several salient points. This is not all that he had to say, but below are some highlights of his points. This can be handy when discussing translations and textual criticism with KJV Onlyites.

Quote:

the Greek text which stands behind the King James Bible is demonstrably inferior in certain places. The man who edited the text was a Roman Catholic priest and humanist named Erasmus.1 He was under pressure to get it to the press as soon as possible since (a) no edition of the Greek New Testament had yet been published, and (b) he had heard that Cardinal Ximenes and his associates were just about to publish an edition of the Greek New Testament and he was in a race to beat them. Consequently, his edition has been called the most poorly edited volume in all of literature! It is filled with hundreds of typographical errors which even Erasmus would acknowledge. Two places deserve special mention. In the last six verses of Revelation, Erasmus had no Greek manuscript (=MS) (he only used half a dozen, very late MSS for the whole New Testament any way). He was therefore forced to ‘back-translate’ the Latin into Greek and by so doing he created seventeen variants which have never been found in any other Greek MS of Revelation! He merely guessed at what the Greek might have been. Secondly, for 1 John 5:7-8, Erasmus followed the majority of MSS in reading “there are three witnesses in heaven, the Spirit and the water and the blood.” However, there was an uproar in some Roman Catholic circles because his text did not read “there are three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit.” Erasmus said that he did not put that in the text because he found no Greek MSS which had that reading. This implicit challenge—viz., that if he found such a reading in any Greek MS, he would put it in his text—did not go unnoticed. In 1520, a scribe at Oxford named Roy made such a Greek MS (codex 61, now in Dublin). Erasmus’ third edition had the second reading because such a Greek MS was ‘made to order’ to fill the challenge! To date, only a handful of Greek MSS have been discovered which have the Trinitarian formula in 1 John 5:7-8, though none of them is demonstrably earlier than the sixteenth century.

Quote:

the King James Bible has undergone three revisions since its inception in 1611, incorporating more than 100,000 changes. Which King James Bible is inspired, therefore?

Quote:

300 words found in the KJV no longer bear the same meaning—e.g., “Suffer little children…to come unto me” (Matt 19:14). “Study to shew thyself approved unto God” (2 Tim 2:15). Should we really embrace a Bible as the best translation when it uses language that not only is not clearly understood any more, but in fact has been at times perverted and twisted?

Quote:

the KJV includes one very definite error in translation, which even KJV advocates would admit. In Matthew 23:24 the KJV has ‘strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.’ But the Greek has ‘strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.’ In the least, this illustrates not only that no translation is infallible but also that scribal corruptions can and do take place-even in a volume which has been worked over by so many different hands (for the KJV was the product of a very large committee of over 50 scholars).

Quote:

when the KJV was first published, it was heavily resisted for being too easy to understand! Some people revere it today because it is difficult to understand. I fear that part of their response is due to pride: they feel as though they are able to discern something that other, less spiritual folks cannot.

Quote:

though it is true that the modern translations ‘omit’ certain words and verses (or conversely, the KJV adds to the Word of God, depending on how you look at it), the issue is not black-or-white. In fact, the most recent edition of a Greek New Testament which is based on the majority of MSS, rather than the most ancient ones (and thus stands firmly behind the King James tradition), when compared to the standard Greek New Testament used in most modern translations, excises over six hundred and fifty words or phrases! Thus, it is not proper to suggest that only modern translations omit; the Greek text behind the KJV omits, too! The question, then, is not whether modern translations have deleted portions of the Word of God, but rather whether either the KJV or modern translations have altered the Word of God. I contend that the KJV has far more drastically altered the scriptures than have modern translations. Nevertheless, I repeat: most textual critics for the past two hundred and fifty years would say that no doctrine is affected by these changes. One can get saved reading the KJV and one can get saved reading the NIV, NASB, etc.

Quote:

although it is often asserted that heretics produced some of the New Testament MSS we now have in our possession, there is only one group of MSS known to be produced by heretics: certain Byzantine MSS of the book of Revelation. This is significant because the Byzantine text stands behind the KJV! These MSS formed part of a mystery cult textbook used by various early cults. But KJV advocates constantly make the charge that the earliest MSS (the Alexandrian MSS) were produced by heretics. The sole basis they have for this charge is that certain readings in these MSS are disagreeable to them!

Quote:

when one examines the variations between the Greek text behind the KJV (the Textus Receptus) and the Greek text behind modern translations, it is discovered that the vast majority of variations are so trivial as to not even be translatable (the most common is the moveable nu, which is akin to the difference between ‘who’ and ‘whom’!)

Quote:

when one compares the number of variations that are found in the various MSS with the actual variations between the Textus Receptus and the best Greek witnesses, it is found that these two are remarkably similar. There are over 400,000 textual variants among NT MSS. But the differences between the Textus Receptus and texts based on the best Greek witnesses number about 5000—and most of these are untranslatable differences! In other words, over 98% of the time, the Textus Receptus and the standard critical editions agree. Those who vilify the modern translations and the Greek texts behind them have evidently never really investigated the data. Their appeals are based largely on emotion, not evidence. As such, they do an injustice to historic Christianity as well as to the men who stood behind the King James Bible. These scholars, who admitted that their work was provisional and not final (as can be seen by their preface and by their more than 8000 marginal notes indicating alternate renderings), would wholeheartedly welcome the great finds in MSS that have occurred in the past one hundred and fifty years.

__________________