EthnAlln

I've just done a Google search looking for good sources on the doctrine of the Trinity and found it nearly impossible to get a source that didn't have a blatantly obvious theological axe to grind. Here's the least biased source that came up on the first page:

http://www.onenessweb.com/apostolicp...s/trinity.html

Information on this subject in the Oxford Companion to Christianity is also scattered throughout the book and hard to summarize. I'm sure there must be a good, concise source for the history and development of this doctrine, and one of you probably knows what it is. Please add what you can.

I happened to be thinking about this because I spend about half an hour a day keeping up my ancient Greek, and this morning I happened to be reading chapter 5 of the first letter of John. Starting at verse 6, I translated:

Fine, seemed easy enough to do. (In general, the first letter of John is about the easiest Greek there is, and I recommend it to those who are just beginning to study Greek.) Then I checked it against my KJV, and here is what I found:

My Greek New Testament notes that the verse that I have put in boldface is found only in certain manuscripts. Suspiciously, those manuscripts are the ones used by the Doctors of the Catholic Church to establish the text, in the fourth century and later. Of course, at this point, all we have are much later copies, even of these documents. It's something of a miracle that some manuscripts have survived without it. Notice how much more coherent the passage is without the boldface insert. (Not that it makes much sense even then: Water and blood may be circumstantial evidence at a crime scene, useful for an episode of CSI, but hardly what one would call "witnesses.")

The other passage where the trinitarian formula is found occurs at the very end of Matthew's Gospel, and contradicts the formula for baptism that we know (from the Book of Acts) was used by the early Christians. Again, that strongly suggests a later addition to the original text.

Your thoughts?

Alethias

I believe you're going to get better responses to this in the Abrahamic Scripture: Criticism & History forum, so I'm going to send it there.

Regards,
Alethias, GRD Moderator

hatsoff

I think a lot of New Testament passages are most easily explained by the authors having believed in a three-person structure. Obviously they believed God and Christ were (at least in some sense) separate entities. Their work strongly suggests they regarded the "Holy Spirit," "Spirit of God" or "Spirit of Christ," depending on the text, as a third and distinct object. These three persons were considered to be, if not equal, at least very close in importance and authority.

So that takes care of the "three persons;" as for the "in one Godhead" portion of the doctrine, I haven't been able to pin that one down just yet. It would appear to be a late second or early third century concept. It also seems to be a harmonization (as opposed to an invention). In other words, all the ingredients for the doctrine were there in the first century; they simply hadn't been amalgamated into a single idea.

Malachi151

The trinity doctrine came out of Alexandria Egypt, no doubt influenced by the long history of trinity beliefs in Egyptian religion.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/leg/leg14.htm

http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/leg/leg13.htm

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/ritson/...n/creation.htm

mountainman

Your pathways of thought has followed that of Sir Isaac Newton.

From this page
(although this is all over the net):

Below are excerpts from
"A Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture".
---- Newton


Newton on I John 5:7


Newton states that this verse appeared for the first time in the third edition of Erasmus's New Testament.
"When they got the Trinity; into his edition they threw by their manuscript, if they had one, as an almanac out of date. And can such shuffling dealings satisfy considering men?....It is rather a danger in religion than an advantage to make it now lean on a broken reed.

"In all the vehement universal and lasting controversy about the Trinity in Jerome's time and both before and long enough after it, this text of the "three in heaven" was never once thought of. It is now in everybody’s mouth and accounted the main text for the business and would assuredly have been so too with them, had it been in their books.

"Let them make good sense of it who are able. For my part, I can make none. If it be said that we are not to determine what is Scripture what not by our private judgments, I confess it in places not controverted, but in disputed places I love to take up with what I can best understand. It is the temper of the hot and superstitious art of mankind in matters of religion ever to be fond of mysteries, and for that reason to like best what they understand least. Such men may use the Apostle John as they please, but I have that honour for him as to believe that he wrote good sense and therefore take that to be his which is the best." [1]



Newton on I Timothy 3:16


"In all the times of the hot and lasting Arian controversy it never came into play....they that read "God manifested in the flesh" think it one of the most obvious and pertinent texts for the business."
"The word Deity imports exercise of dominion over subordinate beings and the word God most frequently signifies Lord. Every lord is not God. The exercise of dominion in a spiritual being constitutes a God. If that dominion be real that being is the real God; if it be fictitious, a false God; if it be supreme, a supreme God." [1]

Newton also wrote a discussion on two other texts that Athanasius had attempted to corrupt. This work has not been preserved. He believed that not all the books of the Scriptures have the same authority.

Issac Newton was born in Lincolnshire in 1642 and educated at Cambridge. He was elected to the Royal Society in 1672, and was a member of the Gentleman's Club of Spalding. Newton became Warden of the Royal Mint in 1696, where he was instrumental in fixing the gold standard. Newton was elected President of the Royal Society in 1703. Sir Isaac Newton held unitarian views and was a follower of Arius.

Reference
1. A. Wallace, "Anti-Trinitarian Biographies," Vol. III, pp. 428-439, 1850.

These pathways of thought invariably lead back to Arius,
and what the world knows as the Arian controversy, which
the world believes to be some esoteric theological issue
related to the "holy trinity".

Best wishes in further research,


Pete Brown

gstafleu

Congratulations! You have just found the Johanine Comma. Do a google on that and you'll find lots. Apparently
the italiced text is an interpolation.

There is an interesting story about that. When Erasmus was putting the first (more or less, but that's another story) greek NT together he found that the Comma did not appear in his Greek MS. So he left it out. The church then threw an extended hissy fit because the Comma is about the only biblical place that mentions the trinity. So in the next edition he put it back in again . The wimp.

(From Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman.)

Gerard Stafleu

EthnAlln

Many thanks for this very helpful response, and to Malachi also.

Newton's very telling point is that, if this verse had been in the manuscripts during the century when this doctrine was declared, some mention would assuredly have been made of it at the time. That is absolutely correct. (It is the same reason that we know the supposed confession of Josephus is a later interpolation, since Origen who quotes Josephus elsewhere, would assuredly have quoted this passage if he could have.)

It makes sense that the doctrine originated in Egypt. Certainly Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria in the mid-fourth century, was a rabid Trinitarian. He is credited (if that is the right word) with the ferocious Athanasian Creed, which begins

You got that, folks? Never mind that it is a farrago of literal nonsense. You have to believe it. What's that? You say you can't understand it? Well, never mind. Just say you believe it, and no one will notice.

EthnAlln

Thank you. As you can no doubt tell, I'm a rank amateur and newcomer to any kind of textual criticism. That's a great quote from Ehrman's book, which I have looked at but not bought.

andrewcriddle

For better or worse Athanasius can not be held responsible for the "Athanasian Creed" which was composed in Latin probably in France around 500 CE long after Athanasius was dead.

Andrew Criddle

gstafleu

So am I, for that matter, I just got to reading Misquoting Jesus before you.

Just to be exact, the quote that shows the interpolation is from here, the bit about Erasmus from Ehrman.

Gerard