In this series of posts, we are discussing various scribal errors. In the previous post we started discussing errors that result in addition to the text. We continue with that family of errors here. The second type of error that results in addition to the text is contamination.

When contamination occurs, text that appears elsewhere on the manuscript is copied into the biblical text. The extraneous matter could be comments written by the scribe of the earlier manuscript.

A classic example of contamination is in John 5.3-4. The ESV text is

In these lay a multitude of invalids—blind, lame, and paralyzed, waiting for the moving of the water; for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool, and stirred the water: whoever stepped in first after the stirring of the water was healed of whatever disease he had.

Most manuscripts contain the italicized text wholly or in part, as indicated by the ESV text notes. Even though the added text is lengthy in some manuscripts, it is easily seen that the addition actually adds absolutely nothing to the original text of John. This text is considered not part of John’s original text for there is no way to account for the omission of such a large portion of text in the vast majority of manuscripts. Indeed, the disputed words seem to have been inserted to explain v. 7.

However, the insertion is based on the premise that John has to explain everything he writes, when that is not necessarily the case. It is much easier to explain the introduction of the disputed words than their excision. It is likely that some scribe, dissatisfied with John’s not explaining the disturbing of the waters, added a commentary on the margins, which a later scribe then introduced into the main body of the text.

While the disputed words are in all likelihood not original, they neither add nor subtract from the message and meaning of the passage.

However, this is not always the case. Take, for example, 1 John 5.7-8. The Textus Receptus, on which the King Jame Version is based, has the following text:

οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν.

The King James text reads as follows:

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.

Observe that the KJV italicizes the disputed text, indicating that the editors were aware of variants in the text. Without the disputed text, the Greek text would be:

οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν.

The corresponding KJV text would be:

For there are three that bear record – the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

The omitted text includes the two parallels ‘in heaven’ and ‘in earth’. It is quite difficult to explain the omission of both these. However, a scribe who wanted the doctrine of the trinity to appear explicitly in the New Testament text might have thought this is good place to introduce it in the manner suggested by the Textus Receptus, probably to refute an Arian reading of John 1.1. (The Arian heresy continues till today under the name of Jehovah’s Witness. The New World Translation for John 1.1, in opposition to the doctrine of the trinity, reads, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”)

The disputed text is known as the Comma Johanneum and, while most modern translations not directly based on the Textus Receptus exclude the disputed text, scholars are still fiercely divided over its authenticity.

The text is a clear statement of the doctrine of the trinity. So one can understand the desire to see it as authentic, especially since it would give us one text with which to support the doctrine of the trinity. However, even without the ‘comma’ a careful reader can deduce the doctrine from the rest of the New Testament.

Contamination is quite common in the manuscripts. However, even in the extreme case from 1 John we do not have something that would undermine orthodox Christian belief.