“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” (1 John 5:7,8).
In some versions, the First Epistle of John’s lines 5:7-8 contain an interpolated statement known as the “Johannine Comma” (Comma Johanneum). In the early modern era, it became a focal point for Roman Catholic and Protestant arguments on the Trinity theory.
“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” (1 John 5:7,8, KJV). Some devout Christians may find the text-based decision here disturbing in that parts of verses 7 and 8, as found in the KJV and NKJV, are only found in a handful of NT Greek manuscripts.[1] According to MacDonald, “late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century).”[2] And most modern English translations do not contain “in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one” other than the KJV and NKJV.
Considering that the majority of the earliest manuscripts do not contain the variant in question, and taking into account that the King James translation when completed in the 17th century didn’t utilize the earliest Greek manuscripts as other later translations do, it does not come as much of a surprise that most scholars conclude that this section was not in the original text. Though theologically, this could be perceived as problematic, because these words so clearly affirm the doctrine of the Trinity, an argument for the Trinity can be easily made with or without this passage.
[1] Erasmus omitted the variant from his first and second editions of the Greek-Latin NT, because it was not in his Greek manuscripts.
[2] William MacDonald, Believer’s Bible Commentary. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2016), 2426.
To view all posts, click/press the link here to visit the Amazing Tangled Grace main page.
Please Subscribe to follow my blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. God bless!
Amazing Tangled Grace 
Yes as a translator myself (though not of classic Greek or Hebrew), I do get the purpose of translating concepts not just words. My issue with The Message and others of similar ilk is that they don’t just tiptoe over the line for clarity. They start to preach a sermon on the subject. If it were preaching I am kind of okay with some things but it shouldn’t pretend to be a true translation or even reasonable paraphrase. Just my humble opinion anyway. Be blessed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, and I agree with you about The Message etc. I am inclined to view them more in the light of commentaries, which has its place, but yes, not as a translation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I love what Eugene Peterson wrote in the “Preface to the Reader” of The Message: “The Message is a reading Bible . . . simply to get people reading it who don’t know that the Bible is readable at all, at least by them, and to get people who long ago lost interest in the Bible to read it again.” My husband and I own a parallel Bible with NIV and The Message side-by-side. Most often I’m impressed how well Rev. Peterson expresses the meaning of a passage, even if it’s not exact translation. He also wrote, “[The Message] is not intended to replace the excellent study Bibles that are available.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
The scholars were kind of tough on the MSG, but I like how you framed that. Thank you for sharing!
LikeLike
If we had to be scholars to ‘ fall in love” with Jesus…I , of all men, would be most miserable. 😃😃So thankful for the Holy Spirit who brings understanding so it all makes sense in our personal walk.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Amen!
LikeLiked by 1 person