The purpose of this article is to proclaim the truth and not to hurt the sensibilities of our Christian brethren.
There are many genuine Christians who sincerely seek the Eternal and are being led astray by poor translations, for this reason, this article is presented.
TRINITARIAN VERSES WITH POOR MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE
The following five Trinitarian translations have poor manuscript evidence. They are still translated in a Trinitarian way by many translators. There are manuscripts that are early and reliable that say something different from the Trinitarian reading.
John 1:18
John 1:18 [NASB 1995]
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, he has explained Him.
There are manuscripts that have these words and there are manuscripts that have <the only- begotten Son>. There are significant manuscripts on both sides. John Barnes, the author of this study, believes that the original read <only-begotten Son> for the following reasons:
1) Three times in the literature of the book called John, we find the phrase <only-begotten Son>:
● John 3:16 - For YAHWEH so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that everyone believing into Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. ● John 3:18 - ... for he has not believed into the name of the only begotten Son of YAHWEH. ● 1 John 4:9 - ... YAHWEH sent his only-begotten Son into the world, that we might live by Him.
Nowhere do you find the term ‘only-begotten God’ which makes the Trinitarian translation of John 1:18 highly unlikely.
2) There is greater textual diversity for the reading ‘begotten-Son’. The Western Caesarian and Byzantine families of manuscripts all support ‘begotten Son’ or have more support for ‘begotten Son’. These families are just different regions where texts are found. The way textual copies work is that the original gets copied to different places, those copies, in turn, get copied and so on. So, you can find branches of different textual families. There are more textual families that support the reading ‘begotten Son’. The only textual family that supports the reading ‘begotten God’ is the Alexandrian text. So the reading ‘begotten Son’ is more credible.
3) The ‘begotten Son’ reading is more common in the Latin and Syriac manuscripts as well, and it is more predominant in the writings of the ‘Church Fathers’, although there are some that say ‘begotten God’ as well.
4) The verse about the Eternal being revealed by Yeshua starts with <no one has ever seen God> and many people had seen Yeshua by the time the book of John was being written. So, to call Yeshua God makes no sense and creates an inherent contradiction within what the author is saying because you can see the ‘only-begotten God’ but you cannot see God.
There are also a few Trinitarian translations such as the Holman Christian Standard Bible, the American Standard Version and the Douay-Reims Bible that use ‘begotten Son’.
The correct translation of John 1:18 would be
John 1:18 [Codex Sinaiticus*]
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.
* Codex Sinaiticus – Was written in the middle of the fourth century; it contains the earliest complete copy of the New Testament (codexsinaiticus.org).
1 Timothy 3:16
The second Trinitarian mistranslation based on poor manuscript evidence is
1 Timothy 3:16 [King James Version - King James Version - KJV]
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Clearly the subject here is Yeshua, but the text seems to be calling him ‘God’, at least in the King James Version. However, the majority use <he was manifested in the flesh> and that is because the manuscript evidence far outweighs the reading ‘he’ (the relative pronoun «hos» in Greek).
Bruce Meer says in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament
… no uncial (Greek or Latin manuscript written in uppercase letters) earlier than the 8th or 9th century supports the reading «Theos» (God). All ancient versions presuppose «hos» or «ha». No patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading «theos».
So, he is saying that there is poor manuscript evidence supporting «Theos» (God) was manifested in the flesh. No Greek or Latin manuscripts before the 8th or 9th century include that. So it is most likely a forgery. That is why most ‘Trinitarian translations’ do not translate it as <God was manifested in the flesh>. The NIV, the NLT, the ESV, the NASB, the NAB do not use the translation<God was manifested in the flesh> because of poor manuscript evidence. Therefore, we should not use a verse like this to try to support to try to support the Trinity.
The Hebraic Roots Version among others renders this verse correctly
1 Timothy 3:16 [HRB]
Truly, great is the divine mystery of righteousness: which was revealed in the flesh ...
Acts 20:28
Another verse that the author believes is mistranslated is Acts 20:28. Many Trinitarian translations such as the English Standard Version and the New International Version translate it as
Acts 20:28 [English Standard Version - ESV]
Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.
This translation makes it sound like the Eternal has blood. The first thing to be noted is that there are manuscript issues with a phrase that was used earlier, which has an impact on the entire conversation. The phrase is <the Church of God>, some manuscripts say <the Church of the Lord>, they are essentially split. The Sinaticus and the Vaticanus manuscripts, both written in the fourth century, have <church of God>. There are some other excellent manuscripts that say <Church of the Lord> such as the Alexandrinus, Ephraemi and Bezae manuscripts, all from the fifth century. To base a theological doctrine that the Eternal has blood on a verse like this is already dangerous. But if the Church of the Lord> was the original reading which he obtained with his own blood, it would just mean that Yeshua is the Lord being referred to. All throughout the New Testament we see that Yeshua died for the Church and that it was his blood that was shed. Never once anywhere else in the New Testament is the Eternal’s blood shed. There is another manuscript problem that happens at the end of the verse, where it says <… his own blood>. The vast majority of evidence favours < … blood of his own>. When you ask, who is his own? It is His own son, which is another term throughout the New Testament.
There are essentially four options for how to translate this verse because of the two textual variants you have:
1) Church of the Lord which he obtained with the blood of his Own. (Yeshua’s blood)
2) Church of God, which he obtained with the blood of his Own. (Yeshua’s blood)
3) Church of the Lord, which he obtained with his own blood.
4) Church of God which he obtained with his own blood. (this translation teaches that the Eternal has blood)
The blood of his own (Son) lines up with the consistent testimony of the New Testament that it is Yeshua’s blood that was shed, not the Eternal’s. We see this in 1 John 1:7, Matthew 26:28 and a few other places. It is the consistent testimony of the New Testament that it is Yeshua’s blood. The best and most likely reading would be <Church of God>, which he obtained with the blood of his own.
The correct rendition of this verse would be
Acts 20:28 [Contemporary English Version - CEV]
Look after yourselves and everyone the Holy Spirit has placed in your care. Be like shepherds to God's church. It is the flock that he bought with the blood of his own Son.
Good News Bible – GNB: … which he made his own through the blood of his Son.
New English Translation – NET: … that he obtained with the blood of his own Son.
1 John 5:7
Another mistranslation with poor manuscript evidence occurs in
1 John 5:7 [King James Version - KJV]
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Today, it is almost universally recognized by scholars to be a forgery. It sounds like a ‘Trinity’ and it is not included in any modern version. This is because the earliest Greek manuscript that we have of this verse comes from 1215 after Yeshua, which is about a millennium too late. None of the earliest Greek manuscripts do not have this addition, and it is absent from all different ancient translations (the Syriac, the Coptic, the Armenian, the Ethiopic, the Arabic, the Slavonic …) as well. It is not found in the Old Latin in the early form or in the Latin Vulgate either. So even in the earliest of the Latin it does not appear. The first time it shows up in a Latin version is in the 4th century after Yeshua and the first time it shows up in the Greek is in the 1200s. So, this is simply too late, it is not original and is clearly a forgery. It is a huge mistranslation (or addition) and thankfully it is not in any modern translation.
Without the additions, this verse would read as
1 John 5:7-8 [Codex Sinaiticus - 4th century] 7 For they that testify are three, 8 the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are one.
Jude 1:5
Jude 1:5 [New English Translation - NET]
Now I desire to remind you (even though you have been fully informed of these facts once for all) that Jesus, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, later destroyed those who did not believe.
There were only two people involved in delivering Yisra’el in the land of Egypt were Moses and the Eternal. Nowhere in the New Testament and in the Old Testament is Yeshua ever described as being present at the Exodus, so this should make us pause for a while. When it is translated this way, it really does sound like Yeshua was pre-existing, and it really supports the idea of Trinitarianism. This rendering has poor textual variance. In this case, there are literally 13 textual variants. That means multiple manuscripts have 13 different readings for this verse. So again, if we are going to base a theology on this verse, it is arguably one of the most dangerous things you can do. Out of these 13 variants, 6 of them have Iesu (or Yeshua in Latin) in the variant somewhere but none of them have Iesu Cristi (Jesus Christ) which is significant because when Jude speaks of the Messiah, he always refers to him as Iesu Cristi (Jude 1:1, 4, 17, 21).
This supports the idea that the word Iesu (Yeshua) probably was not original to the text because if it were, Jude most likely would have used Christi (Christ) along with it.
In addition, as mentioned earlier, nowhere in Scripture does it say that Yeshua took part in the Exodus narrative. It is highly unlikely to say that Jude had Iesu (Yeshua) originally in the texts. Seven of those textual variants have «kyrios» in the Greek text so most translations today use ‘Lord’ instead ‘Jesus’. The idea is that the Lord Yahweh was with Yisra’el during the Exodus.
The Codex Sinaiticus of the fourth century rendered it as
Jude 1:5 [Codex Sinaiticus - 4th century]
But I wish to put you in remembrance, though you already know all things, that the Lord, after having saved the people from the land of Egypt, the second time destroyed those that believed not
Source:
John Barnes (Biblical Unitarian)