(27 votes, average: 4.74 out of 5)
Loading...I continue now with the story of how the doctrine of the Trinity as stated in 1 John 5:7 (the only passage in the entire Bible that states that there are three divine figures and “these three are one”) was actually not originally part of 1 John – or the Bible at all. It was a later addition. But how did it come into the King James Bible then? Read on!
This is how I explained it in my book Misquoting Jesus. (If you haven’t read the previous post, it provides some background) (it also does even if you did read it).
**************************
Even though the Complutensian Polyglot was the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament, it was not the first published version. As I pointed out, even though the work was printed by 1514, it did not actually see the light of published day until 1522. Between those two dates a famous and enterprising Dutch scholar, the humanist intellectual Desiderius Erasmus, both produced and published an edition of the Greek New Testament, receiving the honor, then, of editing the so-called “editio princeps” (= first published edition). Erasmus had studied the New Testament, along with other great works of antiquity, on and off for many years, and had considered at some point putting together an edition for printing. But it was only when he visited Basle in August 1514 that he was persuaded by a publisher named Johann Froben to move forward.
Both Erasmus and Froben knew that the Complutensian Polyglot was in the works, and so they made haste to publish a Greek text as quickly as possible. But other…
This is the kind of post that shows why a bit of historical knowledge can make a HUGE difference in understanding the development of Christianity. Was the Trinity in the Bible? Keep reading and see. If you aren’t a member of the blog, Join! And then you can see!
Very interesting and very informative.
What about other passages?
Matthew 28:19, for instance, with baptism “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. Is this translation true to the oldest manuscripts?
I am particularly intrigued by Thomas 44.
It also mentions Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Does the doctrine of the Trinity even fit with other ideas in Thomas?
Yes, that’s what the text said. But my point is that the mention of the three divine beings is not the doctrine of the Trinity. The docrine of the trinity is that they are three distinct persons withint the Godhead of the same essence, and the three are one. You don’t find that in the NT or Thomas.
When did Christians started making the sign of the cross in their prayers (In the name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holly Spirit, Amen)? Is the sign related to the crucifixion of Jesus or the Trinity? Is there any indication of this sign in the Bible?
That’s a great question. I don’t know when that started! Does anyone else on the blog? I believe that yes, it is about the crucifixion of Jesus mainly, though of course people have given lots of other interpretations over the years (I am crossing out “I” — it’s all about God… etc.) No, there is nothing in the Bible about it.
Looked up the latest Swedish translation and it’s not there. “The Spirit, the water and the blood”? What does that refer to? Gift of the Holy Spirit, baptism and the communion?
Much debated! Possilbly the Spirit, the baptism, and the crucifixion?
Wow. Amazing. I’ve been fascinated by the passage on the woman found in adultery, one of my favorites, even if it floated into the canon later. Did not know about these other two, or their shared provenance. Thank you.
What is the earliest, unambiguous reference to the doctrine of the Trinity? Whether it be a Latin text, commentary or other source? It appears clear that this explicit reference didn’t originally occur in the 4th Gospel. But was it something early Christians might have thought, perhaps earlier than the establishment of the canon?
It depends what you mean by the doctrine of the Trinity. The final formulation of what became the orhtodox doctrine was hammered out in the fourth and fifth centuries. But we have the use of the term trinity and an attempt to explain the three as one already in Tertullian (around 200 CE or so).
Bart, I awaited anxiously for this third article on Trinity. I have always wondered about this verse and confusion set in while studying numerous Bibles and their connotations. I will have to read “Misquoting Jesus.” One verse that some site for Trinity is also the odd closing of Matthew: “…go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Once again, it seems oddly inserted and out of place. Vuala! Jesus, referencing the Trinity… Can you give me some info on this, what I would call, addition? Thank you, always for your interactions. Most lay students don’t get to ask the expert on a daily blog….
My view is that this is not a reference to the Trinity per so. The doctrine of the Trinity is not simply the names of the three beings, but an understanding of how they relate to one another: they are three literally distinct persons of the Godhead, all of the same substance, and the three are one Matthew gives no hint that this is what he has in mind… Later writers for example referred to the Father, the son, the holy spirit, and the angels — but that doesn’t mean they thought they were all equal or one; so the mention of the three in Matthew is striking, but not necessarily an indication that he held to the idea of a trinity per se.
Wow! Very interesting! Thanks
Do we think that the original authors of the books of the New Testament saw Jesus and the Holy Spirit as subordinate to God or did they entertain the idea of Christianity becoming a polytheistic religion? Any thoughts on what the consensus on this question was in the first century church?
My sense is that they very much saw them subordinate. the idea they were equal is much later — not officially recognized till the fourth century.
I can’t help wondering if the Greek text, which featured in the Complutensian Polyglot Bible, contained the Johannine Comma. I believe that there are still some extant copies of the CPB (so it should be possible to know) and, even though we don’t know which Greek manuscripts it used as its source material, I wouldn’t mind betting that somehow or other the Johannine Comma was included, otherwise the CPB team would have ended up in the same hot water that Erasmus landed in. Fascinating story though.
Yes, I have held a copy in my hands! But didn’t think to look up the vverse! I’d be amazed if it’s not there thoguh.
In fact, I’d bet a case of Chateauneuf de Pape that it is.
Given the contortions some conservative scholars go through to defend inerrancy, I’m wondering if there are any you’ve come across who dispute the idea that the manuscript with the Johannine comma was a sixteenth century made to order manuscript?
Oh yes! That’s a common fundamentalist view.
That is interesting that it wasn’t in the Greek manuscripts but do you happen to know how it was added to the Latin vulgate? Since I read that it was produced in the 4th century
A scribe inserted it in order to expand teh point of the passage.
Have you written on the origin of the belief in the Holy Spirit as a divine person/being/entity distinct from the Father? When NT authors talk or allude to the Holy Spirit, they do it effortlessly with minimal exposition (e.g. do not grieve the Holy Spirit), implying that these beliefs are familiar to the audience. Yet these beliefs are not found in the Hebrew Bible. How did binitarian beliefs (Father + Spirit) fit into the diversity of beliefs about divinity in Second Temple Judaism? Did pneumatological beliefs predate christological beliefs?
I’m not sure if they are implying the doctrine was well known or if, instead, it had never yet been formulated. There were binitarian views in parts of Judaism, but it was not with the Spirit but other divine beings. (See Alan Segal’s book Two Powers in Heaven.)
Professor, do you think the … escalation or elevation of Jesus from human Messiah through adoptionist exaltation then demigod to eternal logos/trinity occurred primarily in the gentile world? Perhaps in responce to paganism – something like “your guy isnt even the god or your religion? ‘” The Johnine School or Circle was supposedly in Ephesus.
Also if you could post on anything known about the … development of the “holy spirit” that would be great.
My sense is that by the end of the first century, most Christian converts were from gentile stock; there were few Jewish converts after that. So yes, I think these developments happened among gentils.
What the Bible says about the Bible is interesting. In the RSV Preface it says:
“the King James Version has grave defects.”
“these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision of the English translation.”
“The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes”.
hey bart, i know people say the words of institution are some of the earliest attested words of jesus, if they are his then wouldn’t that bring problems for the common line that Jesus believed in an imminent end? if he’s setting up a memorial for himself then he probably believed he was going to die and that his movement would continue in some way after that, or is there something im missing? I guess theres a chance they arent his words
I don’t think we have any idea what Jesus said at his last meal, but I don’t think the words of institution are authentic. They presuppose a later Christian theology.
thanks, i guess i assumed paul probably made them up, whats your opinion on where they come from?
It seems unlike Paul made them up because they are in Matthew and Mark (in a slightly different form) and these authors probably did not know the writings of Paul. (Luke either, for that matter.) I think the words developed among early story tellers who were recalling what happened the night before Jesus’ death.
“Erasmus .. agreed that he would insert the verse in a future edition of his Greek New Testament on one condition: that his opponents could produce a Greek manuscript in which the verse could be found”
Sorry Bart; you can’t say that – unless you qualify that ‘the story’ was conclusively disproved by de Jonge in 1980.
https://confessionalbibliology.com/book/erasmus-and-the-comma-johanneum/
“Erasmus does not at all ask for a MS. containing the Comma Johanneum. He denies Lee the right to call him negligent and impious if the latter does not prove that Erasmus neglected a manuscript to which he had access.”
The manuscript in question. as completed, must post-date Erasmus’s 1516 edition; as it cites that edition in its marginal notes. So, it could not satisfy the supposed ‘wager’; as Erasmus could not have had access to it before 1516. Erasmus recognised it as “recens”.
Whereas the body of the text (including 1 John 5:7) shows no dependence on Erasmus; so was most likely written before the scribe saw that edition.
Certainly, Erasmus borrowed the Greek wording from the Codex Montfortianus for 1 John 5:7 in his third edition; but he must already have decided to include it.
Nice story; but alas false.
Yes, that’s why I call it a story and usually qualify it be saying it may be apocryphal. Metzger, for what it’s worth, was not convinced by de Jonge on the point, which is why we left the story in the fifth edition of The Text of the NT.
Are you referring to this note from Bruce Metzger?
““What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus’ promise to include the Comma Johanneum if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent suspicion that MS. 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H. J. de Jonge…”
I am puzzled why Metzger didn’t simply remove the incorrect statement on page 101; maybe (as joint editor) you might give further details?
Was the story just too much fun not to print?
No, I was referring to private conversations. And yes, it is certainly fun! When I tell it I indicate that it’s probably apocryphal. (Metzger was very careful with words, by the way. He does not actually say what his new conclusion is based on de Jonge’s research; that is, he says a correction needs to be made but he doesn’t say correction to *what*. To put it differently he does not actually say that his earlier statement was (completely) incorrect; he says it has to be corrected. But to what? Metzger was very skilled at this kind of thing, meaning something slightly different from what he could easily be read to mean. To show what I mean: Metzger MAY have meant, in this later note, that Erasmus did not PROMISE to include the Comma but only that he SUGGESTED HE MIGHT. That would not be a promise, and so taht would be the correction to be made. I know (full well) on first reading that doesn’t seem to be what he’s saying, but in fact it aligns perfectly well with what he does say.
Bart: “Metzger was very careful with words, by the way. He does not actually say what his new conclusion is based on de Jonge’s research; that is, he says a correction needs to be made but he doesn’t say correction to *what*. To put it differently he does not actually say that his earlier statement was (completely) incorrect; he says it has to be corrected. But to what? Metzger was very skilled at this kind of thing, meaning something slightly different from what he could easily be read to mean. To show what I mean: Metzger MAY have meant, in this later note, that Erasmus did not PROMISE to include the Comma but only that he SUGGESTED HE MIGHT. That would not be a promise, and so taht would be the correction to be made. I know (full well) on first reading that doesn’t seem to be what he’s saying, but in fact it aligns perfectly well with what he does say.”
Apparently, the exegesis of Metzger (objective genitive) is not always a simple matter.
Fascinating again, Bart; and many thanks for the personal lowdown.
Reading Grantley MacDonald; he absolutely rejects the story of the ‘challenge’.
“.. like all good stories which are not true but which really ought to be, the myth of Erasmus’ promise to Lee refuses to go away”
In his thesis of 2011, MacDonald proposes that the Greek Manuscript in question might still have been “produced to order”; to force Erasmus’s hand. In his subsequent book (2016), MacDonald rows back on this speculation; simply noting the ‘remarkable co-incidence’ of this manuscript’s being presented to Erasmus at just the time when it could make a difference.
The manuscript in 1520 was owned by John Clement – who showed it to Erasmus. Clement in Louven was in Erasmus’s humanist circle; and appears not have had contact with Lee’s rival gang. Clement had got it from Francis Frowick, an Observant Franciscan, who had died (or retired) in 1518. Frowick, and Richard Brinkley in Cambridge, are the most likely Franciscan scholars behind its production. But creating a complete New Testament pandect, just for one verse, does stretch credulity; and Clement seems to have acted in innocent good faith.
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
–Jesus of Nazareth
(Ok, so my words were sometimes altered and even invented. No harm no foul.)
https://www.miracles-of-quran.com/
https://www.miracles-of-quran.com/
Dr bart ehrman can you read this ?
I think in 2100 the world will become more religious than being atheistic
Does anyone have any idea what spirit, water, and blood might have referred to? Which, I guess, would have been whatever the author of these words had in mind…?
Lots of debate on that. The H.S., the baptism, and the crucifixion?
First we have to separate the terms Emanation and Creation
Whatever emanates from the Source (God) is connected directly to the Source as ONE.
Like the Human body , we have legs , hands, fingers etc but we are ONE entity everything communicates with our Brain.
Trinity is a bit wrong because God created other divine beings from the source as well.
If for example God created 8 divine beings would we call it Eightinity???? And who are we to forbid to God to create other divine beings??? Does this make us polytheistic if we have a lot of divine beings?? OFC NOT!!!
Everything has been emanated from the Source(GOD)
Humans are creations and they are not created from the Source(God) but as creations we have the ability to connect to the source following Jesus true teachings because we have the divine sparkle in us.
Our mission is to connect to the source.
Dear Dr Ehrman,
When reading a sports newspaper, the rules of the game are never mentioned and always assumed that the reader is fully aware of these rules(That’s the logic you use when deciding Gospel of Thomas is Gnostic in nature or Not)…..What if simple mention of Father, Son and Holy Spirit was enough for early readers to assume the whole “Philosophy/Doctrine” behind it which you say is missing from NT?
Regards,
Kashif
Yup, it’s possible. But what would make on think so, when there are other equally possible options, other than a gut feeling?
This is not true. Newspapers often mention the rules of the game and especially at times when they change – start of a new season, changes to the league, legal issues. Plus, most sports (all?) have a printed definitive rule book that can be reviewed by all.
Thanks, Dr. Ehrman! This post is really interesting and informative. I am surprised to know that the translation is mainly done by one person, Erasmus. I was expecting the addition, interpretation, and translation of the Greek Bible are collective decisions (made by the church or some aristocrats). The idea of the Trinity is quite influential(I have heard of that even before reading the New Testament).
Ah, Erasmus did not *translate* the Bible; he is the one who first published a *printed* version of the Greek New Testament. But you’re right, today it tends to be done by well-funded communities. And the Trinity! Welcome to Christian discourse!
Bart: “Ah, Erasmus did not *translate* the Bible; he is the one who first published a *printed* version of the Greek New Testament.”
Actually Erasmus did translate the entire New Testament. The Greek was included primarily as background for his Latin translation. Some later editions would even include the Vulgate alongside his Latin translation so one could contrast the two.
“My mind is so excited at the thought of emending Jerome’s text, with notes, that I seem to myself inspired by some god. I have already almost finished emending him by collating a large number of ancient manuscripts, and this I am doing at enormous personal expense.”
“But one thing the facts cry out, and it can be clear, as they say, even to a blind man, that often through the translator’s clumsiness or inattention the Greek has been wrongly rendered; often the true and genuine reading has been corrupted by ignorant scribes, which we see happen every day, or altered by scribes who are half-taught and half-asleep.”
“It is only fair that Paul should address the Romans in somewhat better Latin.”
Epistles 273, 337 & 695 in Collected Works of Erasmus, translated by R.A.B. Mynors and D.F.S. Thomson, University of Toronto Press, 1976.
Dr. Ehrman: What is your view on Isaac Newton’s opinion on the Trinity? He wrote much about it!
My understanding is that he was not a trinitarian, but I haven’t looked into it much.
I continue that have a serious problem with the Trinity. I might be alone in that problem.
Certainly, I can understand the basic concept of a being having multiple aspects and still retaining the central being. However, when a being “talks” to itself, this puts a constraint on the concept I find difficult to understand. One can understand when one mutters to oneself but how about disagree? When Jesus asks for guidance from the father, is that the same being? When Jesus asks why the father has abandoned him, isn’t that acknowledgement that they do not share the same insight and knowledge?
Still, there could be explanations to cover these things — the father and the son are one.
My real problem is with Holy Spirit! It is not really defined. What is it? Did it exist prior to the creation of the world? What is its role? Is it really part of the father?
In some ways it would be easier to understand as a duinity — the father and the son being one. The definition of the holy spirit is so vague I can’t get my head around it.
Help? What is it?
Ah, the problem seems to be that you think the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the *same person.” That would be talking to oneself. But they are three *different* people, who can talk to each other. Yet there is only one God. But yes, the Spirit is confusing to lots of people, but in theory three being one shouldn’t be more complicated than two. Anything more than one that is one is … beyond (traditional) logic.
Dr Ehrman,
1. When you ask “How Trinity Got into New Testament”, a few of layman like me are reading it as “How Trinity Got into Christianity?” Is there an obvious difference between these two questions?
2. Would you also discuss How Trinity got into Christianity in this thread?
3. There maybe few concepts/doctrines which are not in New/Old Testament but are in mainstream Christianity but Are there any Doctrines which ARE MENTIONED IN NEW/OLD TESTAMENT BUT NOT IN CHRISTIANITY?
Regards,
1. Yup, big difference. The trinity came into Christianity LONG before it got into the Bible; 2. Yes, that’s where I”m going with the tread; 3. Sure, lots. Christians don’t have a doctrine of animal sacrifice, for example. And no church that I’ve ever heard of acctually has Paul’s doctrine of baptism, thought they all claim to have. (Read Romans 6 carefully and see why people are baptized and what happens to them when they are)
Wow, I am really looking forward to seeing the difference between the two(came into Christianity and came into the Bible) . I thought the Bible is the root/ or the fundamental guideline of Christianity, so the interpretations of the Bible lead most of the progress of Christianity. Does it mean the trinity invented by the church without using the Bible, without referencing to the gospels( including the none Canonical ones)? By the way, did you receive my email? Happy New Semester!
Hey JinWen. I did! Sorry — I can’t get caught up. But it’s not because I’m not trying. Very sad news. 🙁 But I’ll write you back, hopefully tomorrow.
The people who formulated the idea of the trinity did use the Bible and the Gospels especially, but they interpreted it in ways that were a bit different from what the authors themselves apparently had in mind, if that makes sense.
Would you expand on what you see as Paul’s doctrine of baptism from your reply to Kashif Vohra on 1/17? I was raised in a church that taught what I’m supposing is baptismal regeneration (had to be baptized by immersion in Jesus’s name — not Trinitarian titles— and your sins would literally be washed away). If you weren’t baptized this way, you were still in your sins and not saved. This was in Oneness Pentecostalism, which I am no longer affiliated with. They use Romans 6 quite a lot, among other scriptures, as proof texts for their doctrine of baptism. In your opinion, did Paul believe there was something “supernatural” happening at baptism and/or that it was essential for salvation — that it was more than a symbol? Thanks for clarifying.
Yes, it was more than a symbol, it was an actual “unification” with Christ, that allowed the baptized to be made “one” with Christ so that just as Christ died to sin, so too did the baptized, making him/her no longer under sin’s power. I probably should post on this. It’s a bit complicated!
Dr Ehrman
1.I would also appreciate if you can talk a bit more about it. I am a bit confused.
Thanks Michelle Baker for expanding it a bit…
2. I would also appreciate a bit of your words about How, When and Why Trinity got onto Christianity?
1. That would be a good thread of posts; I’ll think about it; 2. That’s the current thread. It will take a while to get there. But I do deal with it in my book How Jesus Became God.
Dear Dr Ehrman,
Waiting anxiously for this thread’s update:
1. You wrote “The trinity came into Christianity LONG before it got into the Bible” to my question but as Books of NT are the “best” and “Oldest” and “most orthodox” record about Jesus and his followers including Paul, how do we know that Trinity came into Christianity LONG before it got into Bible? I mean there is no other source to tell us that?
2. Do you think Christianity without Trinity would have been as much popular among early converts of first century?
I’m not sure exactly what I meant by that, since it’s not in the Bible. But I guess I meant that people believed in teh Trinity before 1 John 5:7-8 got added to the BIble, since that’s the only verse that has the doctrine. 2. I don’t think any of the first-century converts had heard of or even imagined the trinity.
Dear Dr Ehrman,
How do you know that people believed in Trinity before it got into bible?
Regards,
Because the discussion of the trinity started centuries before 1 John 5:7-8 was inserted into mansucripts.
Dear Dr Ehrman,
Waiting for you to proceed with this thread…..regards
I hate to be a party-pooper, but there is really no evidence that Erasmus ever made such a promise. It makes no difference if Bruce Metzger expressed himself in a deliberately ambiguous way. The story is wrong, and it’s time to give it up.
Erasmus’ English opponent Edward Lee accused Erasmus of lazy editing, but Erasmus replied that if Lee could produce a Greek manuscript containing the Johannine comma, *and* if he could prove that Erasmus had seen this manuscript and ignored this detail, then Lee would have reason to accuse him of indolence. This is not the same as challenging Lee to produce a manuscript containing the comma. Erasmus clearly believed that no such manuscript existed.
This story got changed a bit in the telling. It is first expressed in its full form by the Dutch clergyman David Martin (1722), and the dramatic story of the “rash wager” gradually gained ground.
Yeah, you’re probably right. But it’s a great story. 🙂
As one of the previous comments noted, I showed in my book Biblical Criticism in Early Modern Europe: Erasmus, the Johannine Comma and Trinitarian Debate (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016) that the manuscript from which Erasmus took the comma (GA miniscule 61, aka Codex Montfortianus) was owned at one stage by the English Franciscan minister provincial, Francis Frowyk, who visited Erasmus at Leuven in August 1517. In a letter to Cuthbert Tunstall, Erasmus describes Frowyk’s visit to and all the Greek books that the friar brought with him from Italy, but the letter does not mention Montfortianus. Indeed, if Erasmus had seen Montfortianus at Leuven in 1517, he probably would have included the comma in the second edition of his NT (1519).
The manuscript was subsequently acquired by the young English Hellenist and physician John Clement, protégé of Thomas More and Thomas Linacre, who stayed in Leuven perfecting his Greek with Juan Luis Vives for some months in 1520, before setting out for Italy. Erasmus mentions Clement several times in his correspondence at this time, and clearly met with him often. It was likely Clement who brought Montfortianus to Erasmus’ attention while he was preparing the third edition of the NT.
Thanks. That’s very helpful. I’m always a bit reluctant to say what an editor *would* have done, but I have no problem thinking you’re probably right.
Dear Prof. Ehrman,
Thanks for your response! I appreciate it, especially your comments about determining editors’ motives.
There is more to say about Montfortianus which bears on the story of the “wager”.
The scribe of Montfortianus copied variants from the first edition of Erasmus’s NT into the margins of the Apocalypse, but it is not clear whether the body text was copied before or after 1516. We cannot say with certainty that Montfortianus was copied by an enemy to trick Erasmus, or by a friend to provide him with a manuscript that would free him from those critics who demanded the restoration of the Johannine comma. I suspect that if Montfortianus had been confected to support Edward Lee’s criticisms of Erasmus, it would contain more readings that supported Lee’s arguments.
As it is, the text of the Catholic Epistles closely reflects that of its archetype, GA 326, which has been in the library of Lincoln College, Oxford, since 1483. The watermarks of the paper of Montfortianus show that it was copied some time around 1500. We are probably not far wrong in concluding that it was copied at Oxford some time between 1500 and 1520.
Thanks! Very interesting.
Much as I would like to believe that Montfortianus was created deliberately to trump Erasmus, the codicological and historical evidence just doesn’t sustain this conclusion. Rather, I suspect that the scribe (Frowyk?) simply wanted to create a Greek text (for his own use?) that reflected familiar readings in the Vulgate, including the Johannine comma, and adapted the text of GA 326 accordingly. Montfortianus contains further evidence of the scribe’s attempts to translate Latin into Greek (including non-biblical material), so it was not beyond him to translate the comma from Latin into Greek and insert it into his text.
The story of the “rash wager” may seem inconsequential, but conservative apologists have seized on the presence of this story in the writings critical scholars, including Profs. Metzger and Ehrman, to “prove” to their internet followers that serious scholars are pushing untruths about the bible. We shouldn’t give them any evidence for such harmful claims, which damage the credibility of the field, at least amongst some readers.
Wow. Really? I had no idea. And especially no idea that conservative apologists would take on Bruce Metzger! Really?? For many years he was a patron saint of their community.
Hi Ehrman blog,
Robertus above, quoting Erasmus:
“My mind is so excited at the thought of emending Jerome’s text, with notes, that I seem to myself inspired by some god. I have already almost finished emending him by collating a large number of ancient manuscripts, and this I am doing at enormous personal expense.”
Fantastic quote.
Checking, it is from Epistle 273, and is quoted on the net some.
However, a distinction should be made clear. Erasmus was emending Jerome’s text, to improve the Latin.
His fourth edition of 1527 had the two Latin texts. Bold. And it would be interesting to see 10+ major variants where his Latin differed from the Vulgate in that edition. Has that scholarship been done?
That does not mean that Erasmus put any effort into a tabula rasa Greek to Latin translation. (I think that is the gist of your post.) Erasmus still started with the Vulgate text and made the improvements. At least, that is how it all sounds to me! A fresh translation would be radically different.
Here is an interesting section where Erasmus talked to Martin Dorp about the Latin text:
The Oxford Reformers: John Colet, Erasmus, and Thomas More (1869)
Frederic Seebohm
https://books.google.com/books?id=yvsPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA317
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY USA
Grantley McDonald
“This story got changed a bit in the telling. It is first expressed in its full form by the Dutch clergyman David Martin (1722), and the dramatic story of the “rash wager” gradually gained ground.”
“presented the first fully developed narration of the myth” –
Biblical Criticism in Early Modern England p. 236
======================
David Martin was not the full form, no promise.
The Genuineness of the Text (1722)
https://books.google.com/books?id=qbIHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA84
“Thus when Ley and Stunica had wrote against him upon his leaving it out of his two Greek Editions, he gives no other answer, but that he follow’d his Manuscripts closely, and that if they would shew him one which had the passage, he would streight put out another Edition, in which it should be inserted.”
======================
The full form was by the hard-drinking skeptic, Richard Porson:
Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis (1790)
https://books.google.com/books?id=SUg7AAAAcAAJ&pg=PR1
“1516 and 1519 Erasmus published his first and second editions … having promised Lee to insert them in his text, if they were found in a single Greek MS. he was soon informed of the existence of such a MS. in England, and consequently inserted 1 John V. 7. in his third edition, 1522.”
And thus Horne, Tregelles, Scrivener and others used “promise”.
Dr. Ehrman, could you possibly have a look at this video and respond to Pastor Steve? He does mention you in the video (“Ehrman has fallen off the train”) at 1:14. From what I gather, the “comma” cannot be found in any Greek manuscript prior to the 14th century. Is there any merit to his argument? I’m new to the blog, and very excited to be a part of the community!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sp70JBGXPxM
I”m not able to watch the video, but I”d be happy to respond to any of his arguments if you want to summarize it.
Regarding 1 John 5:7, Pastor Steve goes on to refer the viewers to a quote from John Gill: “It is cited by Athanasius about the year 350 (Contra Arium p. 109); and before him by Cyprian, about the year 250 (De Unitate Eccles. p. 255. & in Ep. 73. ad Jubajan, p. 184.) and is referred to by Tertullian about, the year 200 (Contr. Praxeam, c. 25 ) and which was within a hundred years, or little more, of the writing of the epistle.”
I just wonder if you might know whether or not there is any validity to these claims. Thanks for your time.
-matt
I’d have to see teh quotations. It is almost certainly not cited by these church fqthers as a part of the epistle of John. You need to look closely at what they actually say. Does Athanasius attribute the line to 1 John? WHere?
matthew – good questions.
Steve Waldron runs over a lot of info, I will only cover your question about John Gill and Athanasius
Die pseud-athanasianische Disputatio contra Arium is one of the Greek evidences for the authenticity of the heavenly witnesses. Annette von Stockhausen shared:
“My idea was that it’s a writing probably meant and composed as an introductory text of an early collection of works of Athanasius (ep.Aeg.Lib. and Ar I-III) that was maybe compiled in Alexandria. It’s more 5th century than 4th century (but I have no “real” indications for that, I must admit) and I tentatively proposed the young Cyrill of Alexandria as author (also: no hard evidence, but the feeling that Cyrill and Alexandria could be fitting for the text).” .. correspondence
Here is the Greek text translated:
“But the absolving and quickening and sanctifying laver, without which no one shall see the kingdom of heaven—is it not given to the faithful in the Thrice-Blessed Name? And in addition to all these things, John
says, ‘And the Three are One.”
The disputed text in St. John
Henry Thomas Armfield
https://books.google.com/books?id=5eQCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA56
The textual critics have handled this poorly.
Cyprian, Jerome and other evidences deserve a separate discussion.
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY, USA
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/
Heavenly Witnesses
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?forums/heavenly-witnesses.3/
There are two evidences that need special attention.
Cyprian – Unity of the Church 1.6, quoted John 10:30 and:
The Lord says, “I and the Father are one”
and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,
“And these three are one.”
The critics often try to pretend that Cyprian was involved in an invisible allegorization of the earthly witnesses. An absurd position, but common today. Scrivener at least said it was “surely safer and more candid to admit that Cyprian read v. 7 in his copies”. Franz Pieper is excellent as well.
The second special reference is the Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles, Jerome writing to Eustochium. This Prologue discusses how the heavenly witnesses was dropped because the doctrine was discomfiting. The response has been to try to declare this writing a “forgery”, an attempt based on nothing substantive, except the supposed lateness of the Prologue. However, Codex Fuldensis, dated 546 AD, was published by Ranke c. 1850, and has the Prologue. Hmmm
Jerome was working with Greek and Latin mss. way back in the Ante-Nicene era.
Thanks!
You will notice he doesn’t quote the entire verse. That is why his quotation is not evidence that he found “the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one” — he is referring to the original form of the text and INTERPRETING it as referring to the father, son and spirit, not READING the divine beings in the manuscript he’s quoting.
Hi Professor Ehrman,
This sounds like a very unusual explanation, because it involves invisible allegorizing. That is, Cyprian is making a hugggee mental leap, and transference, without telling his readers. They are left in the dark.
So, can you give other examples of invisible allegorizing ? Where the writer makes a flying leap jump of allegorizing without any explanation to his readers?
Or is that unique to Cyprian and the heavenly witnesses.
In which case it would be classic special pleading.
Franz Pieper understood this perfectly:
“Griesbach counters that Cyprian is here not quoting from Scripture, but giving his own allegorical interpretation of the three witnesses on earth. ‘The Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one.’ That will hardly do. Cyprian states distinctly that he is quoting Bible passages, not only in the words: ‘I and the Father are one’, but also in the words: ‘And again it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.’ These are, in our opinion, the objective facts.”
Similarly Scrivener:
“surely safer and more candid to admit that Cyprian read v. 7 in his copies”.
Thanks!
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY, USA
Actually, that reading of 1 John 5:7 was very common. It led to the alteration being inserted into the text itself. THe only way to know if an author found the longer reading in a ms is if he quotes it as *part of the text” saying that he found it there. It is hugely important that they don’t do so in the early centuries, ever.
Hi Professor Ehrman,
This sounds like an unusual circular reasoning explanation, because it involves invisible allegorizing. That is, Cyprian is making a hugggee mental leap, and transference, without telling his readers. They are left in the dark.
So, can you give other examples of invisible allegorizing ?
Where the writer makes a flying leap jump of allegorizing without any explanation to his readers?
Or is that unusual explanation unique to Cyprian and the heavenly witnesses?
In which case it would be classic special pleading.
A one-time explanation of convenience.
The Lutheran scholar Franz August Otto Pieper (1852-1931) understood this perfectly:
“Griesbach counters that Cyprian is here not quoting from Scripture, but giving his own allegorical interpretation of the three witnesses on earth. ‘The Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one.’ That will hardly do. Cyprian states distinctly that he is quoting Bible passages, not only in the words: ‘I and the Father are one’, but also in the words: ‘And again it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.’ These are, in our opinion, the objective facts.”
Similarly Scrivener “safer and more candid…”.
Thanks!
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY, USA
I”m not sure what you mean by invisible allegorizing. THere was a common interpretation that the Spirit, the water, and the blood who “are one” was actually referring to the trinity. A scribe later inserted the interpretation in the passage to remove any ambiguity. THis is not an unusual view, it’s simply the consensus conclusion of textual scholarship One of the very important keys to this view is precisely that no one, including Cyprian, quotes the entire passage the way it came to be worded in the Latin, and then, eventually, in a later edition of Erasmus, and from there in the KJV. If they mention the FAther, the Word, and the Spirit it is as an interpretation of the passage, not as a quotation of it. Since the evidence is so strongly behind this consensus, any counter argument needs to produce an example of a church father who quotes the entire passage in the longer form known from the KJV. No one can do so because no such quotation exists. So sorry — but, well… (Have you read the full discussions of commentators such as Raymond Brown, e.g.? Otto Pieper and Scrivener simply don’t quote Cyprian quoting the full passage. Look and see!)
How about “unexplained, unconnected allegorizing, invisible to the reader.”
Any other examples? Or only Cyprian.
Prof Ehrman
There was a common interpretation that the Spirit, the water, and the blood who “are one” was actually referring to the trinity.
Bart, any specific evidence for this “common interpretation” beyond circularity and special pleading?
Yes, I have read Raymond Brown.
cautious, dancing, equivocal, humorous:
“good chance” “need not represent”
“There is a good chance that Cyprian’s second citation, like the first, is Johannine and comes from the OL text of I John 5:8, which says, “And these three are one,” in reference to the Spirit, the water, and the blood. His application of It to the divine trinitarian figures need not represent a knowledge of the Comma,28
28 Somewhat favorable to Cyprian’s knowledge of the Comma is that he knew other Latin additions to the Greek text of I John ….”
20th century – Friedrich Buchsel (1933), Franz Pieper (1950), Edward Freer Hills (1956), and Walter Thiele (1959) believed that Cyprian was quoting the heavenly witnesses from his Bible. Thiele is an Old Latin expert.
So, can you allow the easiest interpretation … reference to the heavenly witnesses?
Are you trapped by a tyranny of the perceived consensus?
Nope, I”m just trapped by looking at the evidence. The verse in the short form is interpreted that way by authors like Cyprian, but they never acdtually quote the verse in that long form.
Look I really have NOTHING at stake in this. IT makes zero difference to me, my life, my beliefs, or much of anything. YOu will notice that the scholars you are citing were from the 19th century on up to the 1950s. There’s a reason scholars who have examined all the evidence since them almost never have this view, unless they are fundamentalist CHristians who believe in the infallibility of the KJV.
Also, your thoughts on Jerome?
This is a first-person writing, matching his style and knowledge, and exists in the earliest extant Vulgate manuscript.
Clearly, there is a circular argument that can be used. (Jerome could not have written that about the heavenly witnesses, because the verse did not exist … blah blah.)
If you want to claim the Prologue is not Jerome, could you please give and defend specific reasons? And the proposed author/forger.
Jerome’s Prologue to the Canonical Epistles
“… in that place where we read the clause about the unity of the Trinity in the first letter of John. Indeed, it has come to our notice that in this letter some unfaithful translators have gone far astray from the truth of the faith, for in their edition they provide just the words for three [witnesses]—namely water, blood and spirit—and omit the testimony of the Father, the Word and the Spirit, by which the Catholic faith is especially strengthened, and proof is tendered of the single substance of divinity possessed by Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”
For 150 years it was argued that this was a late addition, but then it was found in our earliest extant Vulgate ms. Codex Fuldensis, in the edition by Ranke c. 1850. The ms. was written under the direction of Victor of Capua.
Please do not just say … “consensus”.
Thanks!
I haven’t looked at the passage in Jerome or studied the manuscript tradition of his Prologue. What does Raymond Brown say about it?
The paragraph from Raymond Brown:
“To the period before 550 belongs a Prologue to the Catholic Epistles, falsely attributed to Jerome, which is preserved in the Codex Fuldensis (PL 29, 827-31). Although the Codex itself does not contain the Comma, the Prologue states that the Comma is genuine but has been omitted by unfaithful translators. The Prologue has been attributed to Vincent of Lerins (d. 450) and to Peregrinus (Künstle, Ayuso Marazuela), the fifth-century Spanish editor of the Vg. In any case, Jerome’s authority was such that this statement, spuriously attributed to him, helped to win acceptance for the Comma. . (Epistles of John, 1982 p. 782-783)”
The Peregrinus idea was countered by John Chapman in 1908, “dispose of this notion”. Grantley McDonald in Raising the Ghost of Arius says it was “refuted”. He says “Serious doubts attend the authenticity” yet he never gives any arguments against authenticity.
Jean Martianay (1647-1717) had tried to give reasons for the Prologue to be non- Jerome, his arguments were shredded by David Martin, the French Huguenot writer. Antoine Eugène Genoud (1792-1849) saw those attempts as “frivoles”.
There are no strong arguments against authenticity. Especially after the Fuldensis discovery which eliminated the argument of appearing in late mss.
In recent years there has been an attempt to say that Jerome only translated the Gospels (and maybe Acts) but this has great difficulties, especially since Jerome asserted translation of the full NT in multiple quotes.
And there is the circular argument … based on the modern textcrit “consensus” that there could not have been such manuscripts .. circular to the max!
Not sure how Christians even came to sense the perception of a “triune God” “Other religions have approached the same subject, for example Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva: or as in Buddhism, Avalokiteschvara (the compassionate one); Amitabha (savior); and Siddhartha Gautama (the historic Buddha)”
Dr. David Hawkins describes the trinity this way…
In the name of Father, “This concept confirms that God the Father/Creator is the transcendent reality.”
And the son, “Therefore, God is immanent in human consciousness as God the Son/Christ consciousness.”
And the Holy Spirit, “Not only is God transcendent and immanent but also available to the human soul, as the Presence of the Self, or consciousness (The holy spirit).
Amen.
“God is not dividedly triune, but that the principle of the trinity makes that which is difficult to comprehend [Dualistically] more understandable.”
Prof. As always, your work is both fascinating & revealing. Personally, I appreciate your adding so much to my knowledge – and you do so with such transparency & integrity. Have you read “From Aset to Jesus: The History of the Goddess Aset in Ancient Kemet From Circa 3000 BCE Until the Removal of Feminine Salvation Circa 400 CE” by: Jennifer Williams from Temple University. She argues persuasively that the Early Christians borrowed aspects of the Kemetic Trinity System – a fascinating study. What do you think?
Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 45, No. 2 (MARCH 2014), pp. 102-124 (via JSTOR Library)
I’m afraid I haven’t read it.
The textual writers seem to be stuck on the idea of Priscillian as the first full heavenly witnesses evidence. Since his quote is quirky, and he was executed for sorcery or magic, this allows a type of hand-waving dismissal.
Similarly, earlier references using the heavenly witnesses like Cyprian and Potamius (4 times, including one to Athanasius) are dismissed on the weak grounds that they did not spell out the full verse. This is a type of negative special pleading, since partial references are common in the textual apparatus.
The Ambrosian ms., with the Muratonian canon, has a work Confessio fidei Catholicae, where the author is likely Isaac the Jew, writing around 370, connected with the AD 366 election dispute between Damasus and Urbanus.
[Exposition of our Universal Faith]
As the Evangelist testifies, that it is written, “there are three, that are witnessing in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus.”
… sicut evangelista testatur, quia scriptum est:”Tres sunt, qui dicunt testimonium in caelo : pater, verbum et spiritus, et haec tria unum sunt in Christo Iesu.”
Expositio Fidei Catholicae (CCSL 9:347, Lines 1-26)
This identification was explained by Dom Germain Morin, and affirmed by Cuthbert Hamilton Turner and Theodor Zahn, and a superb Review by Andrew Eubank Burn.
Lewis Ayres of Durham affirms this authorship in:
Augustine and the Trinity, 2014
https://books.google.com/books?id=LpyG7YnkqokC&pg=PA99
p. 99-100.
While neither writing can be dated precisely, and both connect to Damasus, the quotation from Isaac the Jew is likely earlier than that of Priscillian.
Prof. Lewis O. Ayres of Durham agrees:
=============
Dear Steven,
I think you are right. The dates there are all rather shaky, but it does look as if the fixation of Priscillian is unwarranted. Of course, this might only make a difference of 10-15 years in the citation of 1John 5.7, but it is a difference!
Best,
Lewis
=============
So it is time to change the scholarship!
The heavenly witnesses are quoted in full before Priscillian.
There are additional quotes in that time period, of the full verse, however one is well known (Ithacius Clarus in Contra Varimadum)
And the other has authorship uncertain. De Trinitate Books 1-7 – ascribed to Eusebius Vercelli. However, the Eusebius as author citation is uncertain, and not accepted in a paper by Junghoo Kwan.
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY USA
The question of Priscillian is interesting, but I don’t think it’s the key issue in deciding if the passage was original or not.
True.
How you understand evidences like the:
Cyprian usages (along with others Ante-Nicene, like Hundredfold Martyrs, Tertullian)
Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles of Jerome (see above)
Council of Carthage with over 400 bishops affirming the verse from throughout the Mediteranean region
the solecism in the short text as affirmed by leading Greek experts
Including Eugenius Bulgaris (1716-1806) and Georgios Babiniotis (world-class Greek linguist)
(along with other powerful grammatical and stylistic and internal evidences)
Also Potamius, Isaac the Jew and the first books of De Trinitate around AD 350
would be more significant.
However, it would be helpful if the Prisciallian scholarship would change to match the facts on the ground :). Prisicillian does not give us the first extant full verse usage.
Another issue is that the verse is not really Trinitarian in any orthodox sense, and was likely discomfiting during the Sabellian controversies. That has been discussed, along with a very fascinating Eusebius quote to Marcellus about “the three are one”, on the Forum post here.
Ehrman Forum
heavenly witnesses (1 John 5:7) – rethinking the Trinitarian-Arian-Sabellian issues in the Ante-Nicene church
https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/the-rest-of-the-new-testament/heavenly-witnesses-1-john-57-rethinking-the-trinitarian-arian-sabellian-issues-in-the-ante-nicene-church/
Now I realize that it is very difficult to have anyone really raised in the textual criticism milieu to reexamine these evidences.
Another difficulty is that skeptics and atheists have a low view of the actual New Testament text, so John writing a grating solecism is of little significance to them. Although to a Bible believer that would be a definite sign of non-authenticity for the solecism text.
Please note that this solecism issue in the Johannine writings was actually discussed by Dionysius of Alexandria in the 4th century!
Fun to hash this out here!
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY, USA
Hi,
Cyprian – Unity of the Church 1.6, quoted John 10:30 and:
The Lord says, “I and the Father are one”
and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,
“And these three are one.”
On Cyprian, and the theory that he was allegorizing the earthly witnesses, I would like to lay out a short quote from Henry Thomas Armfield (1836-1898):
The three witnesses : The disputed text in St. John : considerations new and old (1883)
Henry Thomas Armfield
https://archive.org/details/threewitnessesdi00armf/page/104/mode/2up
– p. 105-106
Confesses what ? we may well ask in our turn:—the truth (so we are to believe) of a certain
*** mystical interpretation which he has not given or alluded to, a verse which he has not quoted! ***
In a sense, this is the height of a special pleading absurdity, which has become popular, sans real examination. There simply is no such thing as invisible allegory. It does not exist.
Remember, if the Cyprian citation is acknowledged, all the theories of the heaven witnesses as an orthodox interpolation against the Arians goes right out the window. So there is resistance.
======
btw, there is also a wonderful Latin quote on this topic, from John Mill (1534-1707). And an analysis of the Cyprian quotation and allegorization style by Franz Anton Knittel (1721-1792).
======
In response to Cyprian, Bart Ehrman wrote above:
“There was a common interpretation that the Spirit, the water, and the blood who “are one” was actually referring to the trinity.”
There is no evidence of this in the Ante-Nicene era. None.
Unless you count the special pleading of Cyprian doing an invisible allegory.
Why it arose in the 400s is an interesting question, for another time.
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY USA