(20 votes, average: 4.75 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.
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? disabledupes{b5fbd594a7803a1772864b504a065dea}disabledupes
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. disabledupes{499a203b487a78a0c0e65e043e7463a0}disabledupes
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.)
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!
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.