1

Messianics, Scripture and the Trinity

by Paul Sumner

Examining Scripture with reverent seriousness should be a hallmark of the Body of

Messiah especially among Messianic believers who seek to uncover and restore the Hebrew and Jewish elements of the New Testament, after centuries of Gentile Christian indifference, neglect and hostility. Messianics are used to asking hard questions of Tradition. They stand between two often antagonistic religious traditions as mediators of reconciliation, but also as agents of truth-reform. Messianics are among the most invigorated students of the Bible and history. They're building pioneer settlements where neither Jewish nor Christian leaders wish to venture. And yet, I have observed, when it comes to the subject of the Trinity a sudden pall of silence descends among Messianics. It's not unlike that censoring pall when the subject of Yeshua or Isaiah 53 are brought up in the Jewish community. Sadly and ironically, open-Bible discussion of the Trinity is often snuffed by anti-Bereanism (Acts 17:11). What is the Trinity? And where is it? I'm not talking about verses that refer to God, the Messiah, and the Spirit of God or Spirit of Yeshua. I'm referring to the theological construct, the abstract theoretical models of ontological reality that theologians have devised about God, using those Scriptures. That is the doctrine. That is the "Trinity" I'm talking about. Those who have done indepth Bible study and reading in Church history know that this doctrine is the most mysterious of all mysterious largely because of its lack of explicit scriptural basis. And yet it has nonetheless "always" been the central definition of the Christian faith "always" since the fourth century on. The doctrinal model evolved. It wasn't fully constructed, much less a required Christian doctrine, until long after the era of Yeshua and the New Testament. Even today, what theologians define as "the Trinity" is not what most believers believe because they have little detailed knowledge of what CTT (Christian Theological Tradition) means by the term or its explanatory formulas. Even theologians themselves will say the doctrine is unfathomable. The oft-used expression "the mystery of the Trinity" wasn't coined by mystified Semitic shopkeepers in ancient Jerusalem, but by the philosopher-theologians who speculated about the Godhead and literally didn't understand what they themselves were talking about.

The Theory of the Trinity In truth, the doctrine is really a theory. It's a theory that attempts to incorporate biblical

2 texts into a distilled theorem about the nature of God. But it speculates beyond the boundaries of those scriptures and theorizes unproveable things about him. It's much like the theory of Evolution. And like Evolution the Trinity Theory has been the accepted view of reality in this case, divine reality for centuries. There was a pre-Darwinian era. There was a time when the Trinity Theory was not. Today widening cracks in the theory of evolution have been exposed by responsible scientific research. Also being revealed are the duplicity and unwillingness of the scientific community at large to examine these cracks. Herd mentality and fear of ridicule among supposedly rational scientists as a defense for refusing to look at the contradictory data dominate science. Proponents of Intelligent Design are offering a more data-rich alternative to the theory of evolution. This is welcomed relief. This reminds us of the importance of having sound alternatives to the status quo, instead of merely criticizing it. Discarding the theory of evolution without data backup doesn't convince people of its flaws. But the ID scientists do have the data, and they offer an articulate and viable alternative which casts evolution in a less credible (and motiverevealing) light. In matters of biblical interpretation, it's not as easy as it is in science to exchange one theory with an alternative. But we have "data" in the Bible and in theological history, both of which can be discussed.

Test the Theories I work in religious publishing and I'm amazed at how many books annually come out trying to explain the Trinity Theory. Evidently pew-people still aren't getting it, after 16 centuries. Especially people in the Two-thirds World in the Southern Hemisphere aren't getting it. Perhaps thats because it's a theory that was created and dispersed by the non-Semitic Church of Western Europe in the Northern Hemisphere. The Theory is a product of non-Jewish Diaspora Christianity. As I see history, people have always questioned and tested the Theory because they read the Bible. They weren't influenced by anti-trinitarian sects like the Unitarians, Mormons, or Jehovah's Witnesses. Nor by Jewish anti-missionaries who dogmatize that New Testament doctrine is incompatible with monotheism. I was personally never influenced by such groups, except negatively. My convictions came from studying the Scriptures and were reinforced by reading Christian theological history. Ironically, the Reformation was fired with the belief that people had freedom from God to read, study and interpret the Bible without the mediating filters of Catholic dogma. That 500-year-old Protestant ideal is rapidly eroding. Now, many Protestant theologians

3 and teachers are among the most avid defenders of catholic orthodoxy, which they prefer to call "historic Christian orthodoxy," so that non-Catholics aren't turned off.

Failing the test If you decide that the creeds, church fathers, and professional theologians have no ultimate authority over what you believe, you will soon hear the intimidating faux argument: "Oh, so 2,000 years of Christian history have been wrong? And you know better than all the great spiritual leaders of the Church?" This is the same tactic that Jewish anti-missionaries use with Messianic (Jesusbelieving) Jews: "Nuh, 4,000 years of Jewish history are wrong about God and the Messiah, and you're right? And the Six Million died with a lie on their lips [i.e., the Shema]?" These can be emotionally persuasive barbs. They're meant to be. Their purpose is to create timidity and silence. But Talibanism is Talibanism, no matter the religion. These threats from pious religious leaders are historically erroneous. The theory of the Trinity is not 2,000 years old. And modern anti-Yeshua Rabbinic Judaism is not 4,000 years old.

It's not what you think For many Yeshua-believing Jews, believing in the Trinity means in real terms simply affirming that Yeshua is the Son of God. That is, he's not merely a good Jew and righteous rabbi from Nazareth. Theirs is the basic Gospel, without theological nuancing John 3:16 is accepted at face value. (This is my view.) For them Messianic Faith means Yeshua is in some way divine: he embodies or images the character and person of God, for he is "one" with the Father (John 10:30). But he is still, also, the Son of God, who prayed to his Father. He sits at the right hand of God (Hebrews 1:3). But that simple belief about Yeshua is not technically the "doctrine of the Trinity." The doctrine is much more involved. Here is a succinct summary of the Doctrine:
There is one God and only one God; this one God exists eternally in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; these three persons are completely equal, each fully possessing the divine nature or essence.

In the 5th century, one Trinitarian creed declared that if anyone did not confess belief in the Doctrine, they would go to hell. Not much has changed. In fact, the demands and threats are becoming more strident. Some Protestant (not Roman Catholic) thinkers are now saying that confessing Jesus as the Son of God is deficient and even heretical. [Note 1] Their extremism is not wide-spread, yet. But it may be a sign of things to come.

4 Choose your monotheism this day In simple terms, once Messianics decide to follow Yeshua, they eventually must choose either Christianity's doctrine of trinitarian monotheism or Judaism's unitarian monotheism. There is no middle ground. If you accept Yeshua, you must accept the whole "historic orthodox Christian" view of him as a member of the Triune Godhead. Or if you choose to abide with the Jewish comunity you must renounce Yeshua as Son of God and chant the Shema and sing "Adon Olam" without unspoken meanings of your own. In other words, Messianics are pressed to show allegiance to either the Trinity or the Shema as interpreted by these two traditions. In a sense the choice is between which portion of the Bible they will uphold as their ultimate doctrinal guide. They must choose which (concept of) God they will worship and serve. Yet these distinctions in "monotheism" didn't exist in the first century. Judaism has engaged in revisionism about what "the Jewish doctrine of God" was in ancient times. And the Church's doctrine of the Triune God, as I've said, has been honed and polished over time. Very simply, the choice being pressed upon Messianics today does not originate from Scripture. It was not part of the biblical revelation. You'll never find it in Acts or Paul's letters.

Where is it in the Bible? True and false evidence Only one verse in the NT comes close to the language of the formal Trinity theory: 1 John 5:7.
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. (AV/KJV)

This verse is suggestive, but it neither defines oneness nor does it say the three are "one God." More importantly, this key verse is not authentic. It was inserted into early copies of the Greek NT by catholic scribes who wanted a more explicit prooftext for the Trinity doctrine. The doctrine wasn't based on this verse. Rather the doctrine came first and the insertion came later. Theologians knew they didn't have sufficiently unambiguous evidence to validate their doctrine. So with a single verse, they could mute dissenters. But today nearly all Bible translations omit 1 John 5:7 because modern editors know its true history. Three is not always what it appears to be Other biblical texts are pointed to in support of the doctrine. A few of these are actually triadic not trinitarian. That is, they simply mention God, the Lord Yeshua, and the Spirit. Other triadic passages mention God, Yeshua, and angels.

5 Usually, however, texts that seem to contradict the doctrine are glossed over by Christian teachers. Most commonly, there is a pattern of ignoring key OT passages that both Yeshua and the Jewish apostles repeatedly quote, such as Psalm 110:1 and Daniel 7:9-14. (Protestant theologians and teachers tend to avoid these texts. Except some will point to Dan 7:9 and wrongly identify "the Ancient Days" as Yeshua, not the Father.) I do not say there is absolutely no "evidence" of the Trinity Theory in Scripture. My view is that what is cited as evidence doesn't necessarily lead someone to the Theory. There is a distinction between evidence and interpretation of that evidence.

"Orthodox" Messianics Not a few CTT-trained Messianic scholars accept as axiomatic the view that they must reconcile post-biblical Christian theology with the Old Testament. So they tend to focus on finding the Trinity (or what they prefer to call the "Triunity of God") in the Hebrew Bible, knowing it is the foundation document for Jews and for New Testament Messianism. But, like their Gentile Christian counterparts, what they present as evidence turns out to be only "hints" of the doctrine. And when these hints are studied in context, they lose persuasive power, because a hint is not proof. And quite often hints become proofs only when you're looking for proof of what you already believe. Usually these proof-texts include the "Genesis Plurals" [2], the plural form of the word for God (Elohim) [3], and the meaning of echad in the Shema [4]. Based on these and other texts, most Messianic organizations and congregations have opted for "catholic" (universal, orthodox) creedal statements. That is, their creeds contain terminology widely used by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants. As a result, Messianic groups for the most part are essentially "catholic" in their doctrine of the Godhead. They follow the theological lead of Rome and the major Evangelical denominations. Published Messianic "statements of faith" reveal reliance on prescribed formulas acceptable to the Church at large. [Examples can be seen in Modern Messianic Creeds. Consider my critique of one Messianic defense for the Trinity Theory: How Jewish is the Trinity?

The paradox Whether they know it or not, Messianic scholars face a profound dilemma. For even though they've labored to find the doctrine of the Triune God in the Hebrew Bible, CTT dimisses their efforts. Christian Theological Tradition has long taught that the doctrine isn't there:
The mystery of the Trinity was not revealed to the Chosen People of the OT. (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 14:306)

6
The OT never conceived the idea of a plurality of Divine Persons. (Encyclopedic Dictionary of Religion, Vol. O-Z, p. 3568) The Old Testament writings about God neither express nor imply any idea of or belief in a plurality or trinity of persons within the one Godhead. (Edmund Fortman, The Triune God, p. 9)

Not everyone may agree with these statements from authoritative theological voices. But the historical orthodox view of CTT that the Trinity Doctrine isn't found in Hebrew Scripture cannot be expunged from history and should not be ignored. It should be a warning to Messianics.

Not mystery, but misrepresentation Of course there is "mystery" about God. Any honest, thoughtful person would agree. Mystery is not the issue. [5] The concern is whether the speculations about the nature of God that were crystallized into theoretical formulas rightly reflect and explain the whole content of Scripture. Gerry Todd, a British long-time student of Scripture, once said to me: "How can anyone know that Jesus is ontologically the same substance as the Father and the Holy Spirit? This is something that goes beyond any man's ken, and yet it is held up as clear NT teaching." Personally, I don't question theology because it's philosophical. I reject its presumptuous authority over the Bible, and I challenge it because it doesn't explain everything in Scripture. But worse: it undermines the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament as a source of divine revelation. In essence, Christian theology says you can't have both the OT and the doctrine of the Trinity. But more seriously, neither can we hold to the New Testament, without the official templates. CTT has imposed upon all believers views that go beyond and obscure Scripture. Three examples: (1) In the NT the phrase "one God" refers to the Father of Yeshua (1 Cor 8:6; Eph 4:6; 1 Tim 2:5). In CTT it refers to a theoretical compound triune Godhead of Father, Son and Spirit. The biblical phrase has been redefined, with the implication that Scripture means something other than what it says. And that implies that only CTT interpreters of Christian doctrine can tell us what Scripture actually means. (2) Paul, the Pharisee Apostle, opens his letters with blessings from "God the Father and the Lord Yeshua Messiah." And he calls the Father "the God of Yeshua" (Rom 15:6; 2 Cor 1:3; Eph 1:17). His word choices and "failure" to include the Spirit in a triadic balance are strong evidence he was not thinking in terms of later theoretical constructs. Paul shows no awareness of what would become orthodox speculations on the Godhead. Why didn't God reveal them to him? (3) God's angels and the martyrs for Yeshua in heaven weren't worshiping the CTT model of the Godhead when John overheard them singing praise around the Throne

7 during his visions described in the book of Revelation (5:13-14; 7:9-10). One could piously argue that these beings did not have a fully orthodox grasp of divine reality either. Ultimately the question is very simple: Should believers Jew or Gentile accept the witness of Scripture and the witnesses in Scripture, or the evolved formulations of the post-biblical, often anti-Jewish, Church?

As for my house I believe Messianics who accept the New Covenant as God's revelation about Yeshua haMashiach have an obligation to break bondage to both post-biblical, diaspora religions: Rabbinic Judaism and Orthodox Christianity. I said break "bondage," not all ties. Scripture makes it clear that our salvation does not depend on what we think about God or what philosophical language we publically confess to board-certified CTT graduates. Nor do we earn a seat in the Great Synagogue in HaOlam HaBa with a plaque listing our public mitzvot if we subscribe to anti-Yeshua principles of faith. Our inheritance in the Malchut haShamayim is granted by faith in the atoning sacrifice of the sin-forgiving Passover Messiah, by obedience to him as Master, and through trust that God the Father gives us life everlasting through his Son. We should not be afraid of God's light or intimidated by men. If personal, denominational, or financial allegiances prohibit serious study of serious matters, those allegiances have become our golden calves at the foot of God's mountain. For all Messianics (and Gentile Christians),
Let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; that he may teach us concerning his ways, and that we may walk in his paths. For Teaching will go forth from Zion. (Isaiah 2:3)

Paul Sumner

Notes
(1) The 5th century Athanasian Creed summarizes the Doctrine of the Trinity thus:
The Catholic Faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance [essence]. . . . The Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshiped. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity. (paragraphs 3-4, 27-28)

The Anglican vicar Kevin Giles of Australia is one of many vocal critics of substandard trinitarian confessions by Protestants. He critiques them from the position that "there is no revealed doctrine of the Trinity." It and other important Christian doctrines,

8 he says, "are in fact the product of centuries of reflection on Scripture, heated debate, and creative conceptual thinking." Giles also believes that anyone who says Jesus is eternally God's Son are heretical "subordinationists" who are redefining the Trinity in order to keep women submissive to men since rejecting co-quality in Heaven leads to denying it to fellow (female) humans on earth. See his recent Jesus and the Father: Modern Evangelicals Reinvent the Doctrine of the Trinity (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2006). (2) The Genesis Plurals are discussed at length in my separate article by this title. Briefly, it argues for the idea that when God uses the pronouns "us" and "our" he is speaking to members of his heavenly council. This conclusion is based on a broad spectrum of biblical ideology and interprets the passages in Genesis within the context of the whole Hebrew Bible. (3) The plural form "Elohim"the most commonly used word for "God" in Hebrew Scripturerepresents a biblical phenomenon in which this word and the word "Lord" (Adon, not "YHVH") are amplified or intensified out of honor for the Creator. God is both Elohim and Adonim. Making the nouns plural is a Hebrew way of putting them in all capital letters or in bold font or in gold. The Elohim the Israelites believed in is the GOD above all elohim (the word is also used for pagan deities). He alone deserves the title "God." [For extensive details see Elohim in Context]

(4) Echad in the Shema The adjective echad has various uses in the Tanakh. At times it means first (as in Gen 1:5, "the first day"; Gen 2:11, "the name of the first is Pishon"). Or the numeral one (as in Gen 2:21, "he took one of the man's ribs"; Ps 27:4, "one thing I have asked of the L ORD" ). Or the same (as in Gen 11:6, "people speaking the same language"; Gen 41:11, "Each of us had a dream the same night"). Or singleness instead of distinction or division (as in Gen 2:24, "they shall become one flesh"; Ezek 37:22, "I will make them one nation in the land . . . they will no longer be divided"). Or echad means unique, one of a kind (as in Zech 14:7, 9, "it will be a unique day . . . his name will be unique"; Song 6:9, "my dove, my perfect one, is unique"). In the context of the Shema (Deut 6:4)which occurs in the broader context of Deuteronomy, which reflects the historical identity-battle between Yahveh and the gods of Canaan, Egypt, and Mesopotamia echad means unique above all. The question in early Israelite history was, Who is the true God? On Mount Carmel the people answered, "YHVH hu haElohim, YHVH hu haElohim Yahveh he is the true God, Yahveh he is the true God . . . [Baal is not]" (1 Kings 18:38).

9 Thus so, the Shema is a confession that Yahveh, who is our Elohim, is unique among the elohim. He alone deserves the title God, and he is our God and deserves our singlehearted [lev echad] allegiance. The Shema is not transmitting a Da Vinci-like code across the ages that was deciphered first by Roman Catholic theologians in the Middle Ages who had constructed the Trinitarian creeds and were looking for evidence of their conclusions in the Tanakh in order to convince Jews that Roman Christianity was biblical and thus truer than Judaism. The Lord Messiah himself quoted the Shema in Mark 12, but he did not point to any hidden meanings that would bolster his identity as God's Son. Instead, he alluded to passages like Psalm 110:1 and Daniel 7:13-14 for scriptural validation. [return to text]

(5) Church historian Alan Richardson made an insightful statement about heretics in his little book Creeds in the Making. He traced the evolution of the doctrine of the Trinity, pointing out how thinker after thinker tried to understand the mysteries of the Godhead. One thinker (church father) would articulate his theories, and many in the church accepted them. Then another thinker would point out the flaws in that man's logic (not his devotion to God). The church then decided that first thinker was wrong he was a heretic and so was condemned. His faith and love for God and Messiah were irrelevant. His philosophy was wrong, Richardson writes:
Many heretics, whose opinions the Church had to condemn, were men of saintly character, actuated only by the sincerest desire to promote the true religion of the Lord Jesus. . . . On the whole the greatest heretics "the heresiarchs" were honest Christians, zealous for the promotion of a true and reverent Christian theology. [Creeds in the Making: A Short Introduction to the History of Christian Doctrine (London: SCM Press, orig. 1935, reprint 1986), p. 31] [return to text]

This is the mindset of Roman Theological Correctness that has dominated Gentile Christianity since the early centuries. But it is not the mindset of the New Testament.

Scholarly Comments on 1 John 5:7

From: Bruce M. Metzger, ed., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed., Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1994), pp. 647-49. [return to table head] That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain in the light of the following considerations:

10 (A) External Evidence (1) The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late rescension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading wirtten in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript. The eight manuscripts are as follows: 61 [early 16th cent.], 88 [variant in 16th cent. hand added to 14th cent. Codex Regius of Naples], 221 (variant added to 10th cent. ms.), 429 (variant added to 16th cent. ms.), 636 (variant added to 16th cent. ms), 918 (16th ms.), and 2318 (18th cent. ms. influenced by Clementine Vulgate). (2) The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215. (3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied A.D. 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before A.D. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]). The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blodd), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text. In the fifth century the gloss was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy as part of the text of the Epistle, and from the sixth century onwards it is found more and more frequently in manuscripts of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate. In these various witnesses the wording of the passage differs in several particulars. (For examples of other intrusions into the Latin text of 1 John, see 2.17; 4.3; 5.6, and 20). (B) Internal Evidence (1) As regards transcriptional probability, if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions. (2) As regards intrinsic probability, the passage makes an awkward break in the sense. [return to table head] [Bruce M. Metzger, ed., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed., Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1994), pp. 647-49]
[Top]

11 From the editors of: NetBible www.bible.org/netbible/ [accessed July 10, 2006] [return to table head]
[A few explanatory remarks have been inserted in brackets by Paul Sumner, editor of the Hebrew Streams website. The abbreviations "ms/mss" mean manuscript/s.]

This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum [the word "comma" means part of a book or sentence], has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence both external and internal is decidedly against its authenticity. For a detailed discussion, see [B. Metzger's] TCGNT [Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament] 647-49. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence. This longer reading is found only in nine mss, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these mss (221 2318 [18th century] 2473 [dated 1634] and [with minor variations] 61, 88 429 629 636 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest ms, codex 221 (10th century) includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. The oldest ms with the Comma in its text is from the 14th century (629), but the wording here departs from all the other mss in several places. The next oldest mss on behalf of the Comma, 88 (12th century) 429 (14th) 636 (15th), also have the reading only as a marginal note. The remaining mss are from the 16th to 18th centuries. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek ms until the 14th century (629), and that ms deviates from all others in its wording; the wording that matches what is found in the TR [Textus Receptus] was apparently composed after Erasmus' Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the Comma appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either ms, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until a.d. 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. The reading seems to have arisen in a 4th century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Lating Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church.
[Top]

The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus' Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared, there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek mss that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written in ca. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this ms sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text, as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever mss he could for the production of his text. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of

12 politico-theologico-economic concerns: He did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold. Modern advocates of the TR and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings even in places where the TR/Byzantine mss lack them. Further, these advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: Since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. (Of course, this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text.) In reality, the issue is history, not heresy. How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum goes back to the original text yet does not appear until the 14th century in any Greek mss (and that form is significantly different from what is printed in the TR; the wording of the TR is not found in any Greek mss until the 16th century)? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: Faith must be rooted in history. Significantly, the German translation of Luther was based on Erasmus' second edition (1515) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza's 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus' third and later editions (and Stephanus' editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others.