Did Trinitarians “Corrupt” the Bible?
Shincheonji makes the argument that Trinitarians “added” to the Bible the many verses that show the deity of Christ, or that the Christians “misunderstand” the concept of the Trinity.
Below are the “variant” texts that an SCJ member may point to when discussing the Deity of Christ.
| Passage | Type of Debate | Affects “Jesus is God”? | Actual Variant? | Scholarly Importance |
| John 1:18 | Textual | Yes | Yes | Major |
| 1 Timothy 3:16 | Textual | Yes | Yes | Major |
| Romans 9:5 | Punctuation | Possibly | No textual variant | Major |
| Hebrews 1:8 | Grammar | Yes (interpretive) | No textual variant | Major |
| Jude 4 | Textual (minor) | No | Yes | Low |
Why the Variants?
Translation from Hebrew and Greek into English is not a matter of simply swapping one word for another. Scholars universally agree that there is no one to one exact correspondence between biblical languages and English. Greek and Hebrew are structurally different from English in ways that make simple word replacement impossible. Greek is a highly inflected language with case endings that communicate meaning independently of word order, while English relies heavily on word order to convey relationships between nouns, verbs, and objects. For this reason, Greek sentences can be structured in several ways while still conveying the same meaning, but those same structures would sound unnatural or confusing in English. Daniel Wallace, a leading Greek grammarian, explains that Greek grammar cannot be decoded into English in a one to one fashion because every translation must adapt ancient structures into modern English structures. This principle applies even more strongly to Hebrew, which is highly idiomatic and uses syntax very differently from English.
Another reason translation cannot be one to one is that words in Hebrew and Greek have broad semantic ranges. A single Greek or Hebrew word can cover multiple English concepts, forcing translators to choose the most appropriate English equivalent. The Greek word logos can refer to a word, an argument, a principle, or even reason itself, depending on the context. The Hebrew word “hesed“ is notoriously difficult to translate with one English word because it includes loyalty, devotion, mercy, and covenant love all at once. Moises Silva demonstrates in his work on biblical linguistics that translation always involves selecting one meaning from a range of possible meanings based on context. This is why no translation exactly matches another. Translators must make interpretive decisions.
Translators also must navigate idioms that cannot be translated literally. Hebrew idioms like “he lifted his face” would be opaque in English because the literal wording does not communicate the intended meaning of “he showed favor.” A literal translation would confuse modern readers. Gordon Fee notes that literal translations can sometimes obscure meaning rather than clarify it because idioms function differently across languages. To convey meaning accurately, translators must sometimes abandon literal wording and use natural English expressions instead.
Finally, languages evolve over time. Even English today is not the same as the English of the seventeenth century when the King James Version was written. Words like “let” used to mean “hinder,” and “conversation” used to mean “conduct.” Because English changes, translations must be updated so that the modern reader understands what the text is saying. This is why new translations appear every few decades and why older translations eventually become difficult for average readers to understand.
With this foundation in mind, it becomes easier to understand why English Bibles differ. Modern translations use different translation philosophies. Some aim for formal equivalence, which attempts to mirror Greek and Hebrew structures wherever possible. The ESV, NASB, and NKJV fall into this category. Others use dynamic equivalence, which focuses on conveying the meaning in natural English. The NIV and NLT use this approach. The CSB uses a blended approach sometimes called optimal equivalence. The United Bible Societies explains that even formal equivalence translations cannot be literal in the strict sense because literal Greek often sounds unnatural or incomprehensible when rendered directly into English.
Differences between translations also arise from the need to choose the best English equivalents for Hebrew and Greek words. Because words often have conceptual overlap rather than exact equivalence, translators must decide between multiple acceptable English options. This is not a textual issue but a translation issue. It has nothing to do with corruption or alteration. It is simply how language works.
Idioms also influence translation differences. Some translations preserve the structure of idioms, while others translate the meaning. For example, “sons of the bridechamber” in Greek can be rendered literally or interpreted naturally as “wedding guests.” Both are legitimate, and the difference does not represent a textual variant. It reflects translation philosophy.
One additional reason for differences across translations arises from the Greek source texts used. The King James Version is based on late Byzantine manuscripts compiled in the sixteenth century and known as the Textus Receptus. At the time, the earliest manuscripts available were from roughly the twelfth century. Modern translations rely on the Nestle-Aland / UBS critical text, which incorporates much earlier manuscripts, including papyri discovered in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries that date back to the second and third centuries. Bruce Metzger explains that the KJV translators did not have access to these early manuscripts, while modern translations do. This accounts for some differences between the KJV and translations like the ESV, NASB, or NIV.
It is important to distinguish translation differences from textual variants. Most differences between the KJV and NIV are not caused by differences in the underlying Greek text but by translation philosophy, idioms, word choices, and English language updates. D. A. Carson notes that most disagreements between translations arise from translation methodology rather than manuscript differences. Understanding this background is necessary before evaluating specific textual variants. Without this foundation, readers may incorrectly assume that differences across English translations indicate corruption in the Greek texts, which is not the case. Only a small percentage of textual variants in the Greek manuscripts affect meaning, and an even smaller percentage involve Christological passages. For this reason, a careful explanation of translation theory must come first.
What would the Evidence Look Like If SCJ Were Right?
If the SCJ claim were historically credible, the earliest surviving manuscripts would need to show a very different pattern from what we actually possess. We would expect early papyri like P52, P66, and P75 to lack any form of high Christology. Statements such as “the Word was God,” “only begotten God,” or confessions like “My Lord and my God” would need to appear only in manuscripts produced after the fourth century. The textual development would need to show a gradual increase in divine titles for Jesus over time, matching the claim that post-Nicene scribes deliberately altered the text to support Trinitarian theology.
We would also expect significant disagreements between the earliest papyri and the fourth century codices. If Trinitarian scribes had introduced theological edits, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus would show detectable alterations in passages related to the deity of Christ. These alterations would include signs of tampering, such as discontinuous copying, marginal corrections, overwritten text, or inconsistent readings within the same manuscript. Instead of alignment between early papyri and fourth century codices, we would see large divergences that reflect competing theological agendas and attempts to reshape the text.
Further, non-Christian sources from the first and second centuries would need to remain silent about Christians worshiping Jesus as God, since such worship would be a later development in the SCJ model. Early Christian writings prior to Nicaea would also need to reflect a low Christology or adoptionist interpretations of Jesus, supporting the idea that the church did not originally view Him as divine. The various manuscript traditions, including the Alexandrian and Byzantine text types, would need to diverge sharply, each preserving different theological trajectories shaped by regional biases. None of these expectations are supported by the manuscript or historical evidence.
Why Shincheonji’s Claim is Historically Impossible
One of the simplest reasons the SCJ corruption theory fails is that there was no centralized mechanism in the ancient world capable of rewriting all Christian manuscripts. The Roman Empire did not have a unified publishing system or a central library that controlled every copy of the Scriptures. Manuscripts were hand-copied by individuals and communities that often worked independently of one another. Because of this decentralized process, it would have been impossible for any group in the fourth century to recall, revise, and redistribute altered versions of the New Testament across the entire Christian world. No historical institution had that kind of reach, and no political power possessed the organizational structure necessary to accomplish anything on that scale.
Christian manuscripts were also widely distributed across multiple continents by the second century. Copies of the Gospels and Paul’s letters had already spread throughout the Roman Empire, North Africa, Egypt, Syria, Armenia, Persia, and further east. Communities in these regions produced their own copies, kept their own libraries, and circulated their own texts. Many of these manuscripts were held by groups that did not even agree with one another theologically. This broad and early distribution means that by the time of Nicaea in the fourth century, there were thousands of manuscripts in circulation in geographically diverse locations, far beyond the reach of any centralized ecclesiastical authority.
A significant number of early manuscripts also existed outside Roman political control. Syriac-speaking churches in the East, Coptic communities in Egypt, and various Eastern Christian groups operated independently of Rome’s influence. These groups produced their own translations, such as the Syriac Peshitta and the Sahidic and Bohairic Coptic versions. Because these communities were not under imperial authority, they could not have been coerced into adopting revised or altered texts that promoted a particular Christological agenda. The existence of early translations outside Rome shows that the textual tradition developed in multiple cultural and linguistic settings, making coordinated alteration historically impossible.
Furthermore, no fourth century institution possessed the power to alter manuscripts across multiple languages. For the SCJ claim to be credible, a single body would have needed the authority to change not only Greek manuscripts, but also Syriac, Coptic, Latin, Armenian, and other early translations. These traditions were independent of one another and developed their texts independently. Any attempt to standardize or rewrite all of these manuscript lines would have had to cross linguistic, cultural, geographical, and political barriers. No council, emperor, or church leader had authority that extended across all these communities, and no historical evidence exists that suggests a multi-language revision effort ever occurred.
Finally, scribal changes always leave detectable footprints in the manuscript tradition. Textual critics can identify additions, omissions, corrections, and marginal notes because these changes disrupt the consistency of the textual line. They produce new readings that can be traced to specific regions, time periods, or scribal habits. When a major alteration occurs, it is visible in the manuscript record as a break or divergence. Yet no such disruption exists in the passages that deal with the identity or divinity of Jesus. Instead, the earliest manuscripts, the fourth century codices, and the early translations all contain consistent high Christology. This uniformity across time, geography, and language demonstrates that no large-scale alteration took place.
A Grand Conspiracy for Trinitarians and Biblical Translations?
Shincheonji would argue that the doctrine of the Trinity, as formally defined at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, did not reflect the original teaching of Jesus, the apostles, or the earliest Christian communities. In their view, Nicaea represented a decisive theological shift where Christ was elevated to full deity through a political and ecclesiastical decision rather than through a faithful reading of Scripture. According to this perspective, the Nicene formulation created strong pressure on the church to reinterpret earlier writings, including the New Testament, so that Scripture would appear to support the newly standardized doctrine.
After Nicaea, the Roman imperial church consolidated power and became the central institution responsible for doctrinal enforcement and manuscript production. Shincheonji argues that once theological control rested in the hands of bishops who were committed to Nicene doctrine, the environment was created in which textual adjustments were likely to arise. Since Christian scribes worked within the church and copied manuscripts that were approved by bishops and ecclesiastical authorities, SCJ would claim that scribes were both consciously and unconsciously guided by a doctrinal agenda that favored readings that supported Christ’s divinity.
To strengthen this claim, Shincheonji would point to the historical reality that the second through fourth centuries were marked by intense Christological debate. Christian groups such as the Arians, semi-Arians, and proto-Trinitarians held conflicting views about Christ. SCJ would argue that during this period scribes sometimes altered text to support their own theological positions. They would cite known examples, such as changes in 1 Timothy 3:16 where the text shifts between “He appeared in the flesh” and “God appeared in the flesh,” or the differences in Acts 20:28 where scribes appear to waver between reading “church of the Lord” or “church of God.” According to SCJ, these changes show a pattern where scribes sometimes strengthened Christological claims in order to bolster the doctrinal positions of their own communities. Within this framework, SCJ would argue that passages like John 1:18, which in some manuscripts reads “only begotten God,” reflect the influence of Christians who were trying to strengthen Christ’s divinity during an era of theological conflict.
SCJ would further argue that the Alexandrian text family, which is the basis for many of the earliest manuscripts, should not be granted automatic priority. They would point out that Alexandria was a center of Greek philosophical theology, and figures such as Origen and Clement promoted highly developed concepts of Christ’s relationship to God. SCJ might argue that if doctrinally motivated changes were to occur anywhere, Alexandria was the most plausible environment. Therefore, they believe that “only begotten God” in John 1:18 might be an example of scribes influenced by proto-Nicene theology rather than by the apostolic tradition.
Shincheonji would also appeal to the fact that the majority of manuscripts, including the Byzantine tradition that shaped the later ecclesiastical usage of Scripture, read “only begotten Son” rather than “only begotten God.” They would argue that this widespread usage reflects a more conservative and stable transmission of the text outside the influence of Alexandrian theological speculation. In their view, the broader, more geographically distributed manuscript tradition preserves the simpler and more original reading, while the Alexandrian tradition reflects theological developments.
A fully steelmanned SCJ argument would extend beyond textual evidence to historical considerations. They would argue that since we possess relatively few manuscripts from before Nicaea, we cannot confidently reconstruct the original text. They would claim that the surviving manuscript tradition naturally reflects the theological dominance of the post-Nicene church. According to SCJ, once Trinitarian theology became orthodoxy, manuscripts that did not reflect that theology were more likely to be discarded, corrected, or allowed to fall out of circulation, while manuscripts that aligned with Nicene doctrine were preserved, copied, and widely distributed.
Finally, SCJ would frame this argument as a natural consequence of doctrinal consolidation rather than as deliberate corruption. They might say that scribes who believed firmly in the divinity of Christ would have felt obligated to clarify passages where Jesus’ identity seemed ambiguous. Over centuries, this would result in a growing number of manuscripts that support Trinitarian readings. In this narrative, SCJ concludes that textual variants that explicitly call Jesus “God” should be approached with suspicion, since they may reflect the influence of post-Nicene theology rather than the words of the original authors.
Scholarly Refutation of the SCJ Argument
I’m going to be focusing on citing non-Trinitarians about the claim that the Trinity and the Deity of Christ was established in the Council of Nicaea first, because the claims of Shincheonji are just absurd. Then after this, I will go through the major verses and their variants, and use the Greek that the Bible was translated from to support how Jesus is God.I have already written a thorough article of many examples of the early church already accepting Jesus as God, and we can see the articulation of the Trinity as well.
I’m going to start with the hostile sources that show that historically the early Christians believed that Jesus is God. By hostile, I mean sources that denied Jesus as God, and also were critiquing the Christian faith before the Council of Nicaea. The intent is to show that the Christians were already worshipping Jesus as God.
Hostile sources confirming Jesus as God
Pliny was a Roman governor in Bithynia (modern Turkey) who wrote to Emperor Trajan asking how to deal with Christians. He was hostile and considered them dangerous. Pliny records that Christians gathered before dawn and sang hymns to Christ as to a god.
This is the earliest pagan reference to Christian worship and is extremely significant because it shows:
- Christians worshiped Jesus as divine.
- This worship occurred by AD 112.
- Roman officials recognized this practice as a defining Christian behavior.
This happened two centuries before Nicaea.
“They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ as to a god.”
(Pliny, Letters 10.96)
https://www.vroma.org/vromans/hwalker/Pliny/Pliny10-096-E.html
Tacitus was one of Rome’s greatest historians and a fierce critic of Christians. He calls Christianity a “pernicious superstition” but confirms that Christians worshiped Christ, who was executed under Pontius Pilate.
While Tacitus does not detail their worship practices here, his testimony is crucial because:
- He acknowledges Christians were devoted to Christ.
- He recognizes Christ as the center of their religion.
- He treats this devotion as excessive and dangerous.
- This reflects the Roman view that Christians were worshiping a man.
Direct quotation:
“Christus, from whom the name [Christian] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.”
(Annals 15.44)
The implication is clear: Christians worship a crucified man, which Romans saw as deviation from normal cultic worship.
Suetonius mentions disturbances among the Jews in Rome “at the instigation of Chrestus,” which likely refers to disputes over Jesus (mispronounced). Although Suetonius does not describe worship explicitly, he confirms that belief in Jesus existed in Rome by the 40s AD.
Direct quotation:
“Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.”
This shows:
- The Jesus movement was active in Rome early.
- His followers treated Him with the kind of devotion that caused social tension.
- The Roman state was already reacting to His influence.
A pagan philosopher hostile to Christianity.
He accuses Christians of worshiping Jesus in ways inappropriate for a human:
“Christians worship a man who was punished, and they worship him in an extravagant way.”
(Celsus, “On the True Doctrine,” cited in Origen, Contra Celsum 8.12)
Even Celsus recognizes:
- Christians worshiped Jesus
- They treated Him as divine
- This practice existed long before the fourth century
Celsus’s main objection was the offense of worshiping a mere man, especially one so recently executed. This directly challenged the pagan view of a transcendent God (the Nous or Supreme Good).
Origen records Celsus stating: “If these men worshipped no other God but one, perhaps they would have a valid argument against the others. But in fact they worship to an extravagant degree this man who appeared recently” (Contra Celsum 8.12).
Expected Pushback
Of course, I do expect Shincheonji to have the following set of excuses and push back.
Expected Pushback
The hostile sources that mention early Christian worship of Jesus are preserved in verified classical manuscript traditions. While it is true that many of these texts were physically preserved by monastic scribes after the fall of Rome, modern textual criticism confirms that these scribes copied the texts faithfully rather than altering them to fit Christian theology. The authenticity of these specific passages is not debated among mainstream historians.
Tacitus, for example, is recognized as one of Rome’s greatest historians, praised for his rigor and skeptical method (Syme, Tacitus; Woodman, Tacitus Reviewed). His Annals (15.44) describe Christianity as a “mischievous superstition”- a phrase that no Christian interpolator would ever invent or insert. The fact that medieval monks copied this insult without censoring it is strong evidence of the text’s integrity.
Similarly, Pliny the Younger’s Letters (10.96) provide a purely administrative view of early Christian trials. The text, widely accepted as authentic (Sherwin-White, The Letters of Pliny), depicts Christians not as theological heroes, but as stubborn political problems, a perspective that aligns perfectly with Roman governance rather than Christian hagiography. Suetonius, in The Lives of the Caesars, seemingly confuses Jesus (“Chrestus”) with a Jewish agitator in Rome (Bradley, Suetonius and the Roman World). A Christian forger would have corrected this error; the fact that the error remains proves the text is a genuine, hostile Roman record.
Regarding Celsus, while his work survives only through Origen’s rebuttal in Contra Celsum, scholars can reconstruct his arguments because Origen quotes them at length to refute them (Chadwick, Origen: Contra Celsum). Origen would have had no motive to invent complex philosophical attacks against his own faith just to answer them. Furthermore, Jewish polemical literature such as Toledot Yeshu, while compiled later, reflects independent, hostile Jewish oral traditions that were transmitted entirely outside the Church and were strongly opposed to Christianity (Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud).
For Shincheonji to dismiss all these sources, they would need to claim that scribes and communities across the Roman, Greek, and Jewish worlds – groups that hated one another – coordinated a conspiracy to invent a consistent backstory for Jesus. No credible historian accepts such a scenario. Classical scholarship affirms the reliability of these sources precisely because they are “hostile witnesses” (Ehrman, Jesus Before the Gospels; Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ). They confirm early Christian claims and the worship of Jesus not because they wanted to, but because they were recording history.
At this point, Shincheonji is believing in some weird form of a conspiracy, instead of academic scholarship.
The table below lists the primary source texts and the academic works referenced, including direct URLs to publisher pages, online archives, or key academic resources for each entry.
Historical Sources on Early Christian Worship with URLs
| Source Mentioned | Type | Key Information Contained | Recommended Search Query (for locating the source/discussion) | URL |
| Tacitus’s Annals | Primary Source Text & Critical Edition (Roman History) | Early execution of Christ/Chrestus and description of Christians as a “mischievous superstition” (exitiabilis superstitio). | Loeb Classical Library Tacitus Annals 15.44 | Loeb Classical Library: Annals 13-16 |
| Syme, Tacitus | Scholarly Work (Historical Analysis) | Seminal analysis confirming Tacitus’s rigor as one of Rome’s greatest historians. | R. Syme Tacitus Oxford University Press | Internet Archive: Tacitus by Syme |
| Woodman, Tacitus Reviewed | Scholarly Work (Historical Commentary) | Modern academic review supporting Tacitus’s critical method and reliability. | A. J. Woodman Tacitus Reviewed | Barnes & Noble: Tacitus Reviewed |
| Pliny the Younger’s Letters | Primary Source Text & Critical Edition (Roman Administration) | Official Roman administrative procedures for questioning and executing Christians who refused to renounce their faith (worshipping Christ). | Loeb Classical Library Pliny the Younger Letters 10.96 | Loeb Classical Library: Letters |
| Sherwin-White, The Letters of Pliny | Scholarly Commentary (Historical Context) | Detailed historical and social commentary validating the context and authenticity of Pliny’s correspondence. | A. N. Sherwin-White The Letters of Pliny a historical and social commentary | Cambridge Core Review |
| Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars | Primary Source Text & Critical Edition (Roman Biography) | Mention of unrest caused by “Chrestus” among the Jews in Rome, providing early non-Christian evidence. | Oxford Classical Texts Suetonius Lives of the Caesars | Google Books: Lives of the Caesars |
| Bradley, Suetonius and the Roman World | Scholarly Work (Historical Context) | Analysis of Suetonius’s methods and the authenticity of his accounts regarding Roman life and key figures. | K. R. Bradley Suetonius and the Roman World | K.R. Bradley CV/Publications |
| Origen, Contra Celsum | Primary Source Text & Critical Edition (Christian Apologetics) | Contains extensive direct quotes from the lost hostile pagan critique by Celsus (The True Word). | Henry Chadwick Origen Contra Celsum translation | Cambridge University Press: Origen |
| Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud | Scholarly Work (Jewish Polemical Literature) | Analysis of Jewish textual traditions, reflecting early hostile Jewish memory and polemical views of Jesus. | Peter Schäfer Jesus in the Talmud and Toledot Yeshu | Princeton Judaic Studies: Toledot Yeshu |
| Ehrman, Jesus Before the Gospels | Scholarly Work (Historical Method) | Explores the historical methods used to establish facts about Jesus, including the reliability of non-Christian sources. | Bart D. Ehrman Jesus Before the Gospels | OverDrive: Jesus Before the Gospels |
| Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ | Scholarly Work (Early Christian Worship) | Detailed study demonstrating the early, high-level devotion to Jesus within the first Christian communities. | Larry Hurtado Lord Jesus Christ Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity | Google Books: Lord Jesus Christ |
While the dates of composition for these surviving non-Christian accounts are in the early to mid-second century AD, they are considered extremely early and highly valuable by classical historical standards.
- Pliny the Younger (c. AD 112) and Tacitus (c. AD 115) wrote within 80-85 years of Jesus’ death (c. AD 30). This is far closer than the gap for most major figures of antiquity.
- More importantly, as Roman officials, Pliny and Tacitus were drawing upon earlier Roman administrative and judicial records now lost, such as official reports or municipal archives, pushing the informational chain even closer to the events.
- Suetonius (c. AD 120) and Celsus (c. AD 170) provided critical external views within the first two centuries of the faith’s existence.
The historical reliability of these sources is best understood by comparison to other accepted figures in ancient history.
- Alexander the Great (d. 323 BC): Our primary historical narratives (by Arrian and Curtius Rufus) were written 300–450 years after his death.
- Socrates (d. 399 BC): Much of what we know about his life comes from Plato, who was a contemporary, but the primary biographical accounts are much later.
- Julius Caesar (d. 44 BC): While some of his own writings survive, key biographical accounts by Suetonius and Plutarch were written more than 150 years after his lifetime.
In this context, sources written within two generations (Pliny/Tacitus) or even 140 years (Celsus) of the events are regarded as remarkably close to contemporary for the purpose of verifying widespread social facts, such as the practice of Christian worship.
Furthermore, these hostile sources are independent of one another and come from profoundly different regions, authors, and agendas:
- Roman Administration/History (Pliny and Tacitus): Viewed Christians as politically disruptive and superstitious.
- Imperial Biography (Suetonius): Viewed early Christian groups as a nuisance contributing to imperial disorder.
- Philosophical Polemic (Celsus): Viewed Christianity as an intellectually absurd, irrational movement led by a “magician.”
- Jewish Polemic (Talmud/Midrash): Viewed Christians as heretics or apostates, preserving counter-narratives to the Gospels.
None of these authors had any motivation to strengthen Christian claims. In fact, they held them in contempt or suspicion, yet they still unanimously attest that Christians worshiped Jesus in ways that challenged established Roman and Jewish religious norms. Because their writings emerge from diverse, non-Christian environments and represent different genres, their shared recognition of Jesus’ worship establishes a powerful historical consensus that early Christian devotion to Jesus was already widespread and deeply rooted long before the fourth century.
SCJ may argue that pagan or Jewish critics were simply repeating rumors about Christians rather than reporting factual information. However, even if this were granted, the argument still collapses because rumors only arise when there is something real to explain. In the case of Christian worship practices, the “rumor” that Christians sang hymns to Christ as to a god (Pliny), or that they gave excessive reverence to a crucified man (Celsus), or that they followed a dangerous superstition centered on Christus (Tacitus), reflects observable behavior that outsiders encountered repeatedly across the Roman Empire.
Roman officials were responsible for monitoring religious gatherings, civic unrest, and cultic practices. Their reports of Christian worship were not abstract speculation but practical observations about a group that refused to participate in Roman sacrifices and insisted on honoring Jesus, rather than Roman gods, in their public and private rituals.
Additionally, historians do not treat every ancient claim as equally reliable. When multiple independent, hostile, ideologically opposed sources describe the same behavior, it gains credibility. Pliny’s administrative report, Tacitus’s historical analysis, Suetonius’s biographical notes, and Jewish polemical traditions all converge on the same point: Christians were known for worshiping Jesus. These authors had no shared agenda, no collaboration, and no interest in legitimizing Christian claims. The simplest historical explanation for this convergence is that Christians, in fact, worshiped Jesus as divine. Labeling these consistent reports as “rumors” avoids the evidence rather than addressing it.
The objection that Christians could have altered the hostile pagan writings in order to make early belief in Jesus’ divinity appear stronger than it was is historically impossible.
The strongest evidence against Christian forgery lies in the content itself. The passages mentioning Christians are universally hostile or dismissive. They include descriptions of Christian belief as a “pernicious superstition” (Tacitus), accusations of disruptive behavior among Jews “at the instigation of Chrestus” (Suetonius), and administrative disdain (Pliny). No Christian scribe would create or faithfully preserve such negative portrayals of their own movement. Had Christians interpolated these texts, the resulting content would be celebratory and heroic, not insulting.
While the texts originated in pagan Roman circles, they were preserved during the Middle Ages almost exclusively in Christian institutions. After the collapse of the Western Empire, the monastic scriptoria – not secular libraries – became the primary centers for copying and storing Greco-Roman literature.
The fact that medieval monks, who were entirely devoted to Christian doctrine, repeatedly copied, preserved, and distributed passages that referred to their founder as a criminal and their faith as a “mischievous superstition,” demonstrates scribal integrity and a commitment to preserving the original Roman record.
The claim of textual manipulation also fails against the rigor of classical scholarship:
- Internal Consistency: Scholars specializing in the textual criticism of Greco-Roman literature universally affirm that the Christian-related sections of Tacitus, Pliny, and Suetonius reflect the original wording, not later alteration. The style, vocabulary, and administrative context are seamlessly integrated with the surrounding text, pointing definitively to the pagan authors.
- Manuscript Evidence: While some texts survive through a narrow transmission (e.g., the key portion of Tacitus’s Annals relies heavily on a single 11th-century manuscript copied by Benedictine monks), the absence of textual variants around the Christian passages confirms that the text was not edited across its known history.
To claim otherwise—that Christians were able to conspire across centuries and institutions to insert references that universally portray their faith in a negative light—contradicts both the manuscript evidence and the common-sense historical principle of the Criterion of Embarrassment. No credible historian accepts such a theory.
SCJ may argue that Celsus, being a hostile critic of Christianity, is too biased to be considered reliable in describing early Christian beliefs. This objection misunderstands how hostile sources function in historical research. Celsus’s The True Doctrine was written as a direct attack on Christianity, yet it confirms that Christians worshiped Jesus, prayed to Him, invoked His name for divine aid, and regarded Him as more than a human teacher. Hostile testimony often carries significant evidential weight because adversaries have no motive to strengthen the position they oppose. When Celsus mocks Christians for honoring a crucified man as divine, his criticism only makes sense because this practice was already widespread and well known. Historians regularly use hostile sources precisely because their antagonism demonstrates that the beliefs being criticized were real and public.
Furthermore, Celsus’s arguments are preserved by Origen in Contra Celsum, a work that is widely recognized for faithfully preserving the content of Celsus’s objections. Origen’s goal was to refute Celsus, not distort him. Modern scholars, including Henry Chadwick and R. Joseph Hoffmann, affirm the reliability of Origen’s quotations of Celsus. The criticisms Celsus levels against Christians reflect the broader Roman and Jewish polemical environment in the second century. His hostility does not diminish the value of his testimony; it enhances it, because it provides an independent and antagonistic confirmation that Christians were treating Jesus as divine long before the Council of Nicaea.
SCJ may object that Jewish polemical sources, such as early traditions underlying the Talmud or the later Toledot Yeshu narratives, are simply mocking Christians rather than providing factual information about their beliefs. Yet ridicule is evidence.
Satire and mockery only arise when there is something real to target—an observable practice that needs a counter-narrative. This analytical approach is sometimes referred to as the Mirror Principle, where the shape of the attack (the polemic) necessarily mirrors the shape of the belief being attacked (the opponent’s position).
Jewish polemicists accuse Christians of exalting Jesus, calling Him Messiah, believing in His resurrection and ascension, and worshiping Him in ways perceived as blasphemous. These mockeries reflect genuine Christian claims that were widely circulating in Jewish communities. Hostile Jewish reactions are powerful indicators of what Christians were actually preaching because the polemic must accurately reflect the opponent’s position to attack it effectively.
Furthermore, Jewish polemics provide an independent and culturally distinct witness that aligns with Greco-Roman sources. The hostile attestation from both Jewish and pagan critics describes Christians as venerating Jesus in a divine manner, which firmly places the core of Christian worship of Jesus within the earliest decades of the movement.
Jewish communities had strong incentives to reject and ridicule the Christian proclamation, not to exaggerate it or accidentally reinforce it. Their mockery of Jesus reinforces that Christians were proclaiming Him as divine across diverse regions and cultural contexts. Far from undermining Christian claims, Jewish polemic confirms that early Christian devotion to Jesus was significant, widespread, and controversial.
SCJ may object that these sources cannot be trusted because they are external to the Bible and therefore not spiritually authoritative. This objection misunderstands the purpose of historical evidence. The goal of citing hostile Roman and Jewish sources is not to establish doctrine but to demonstrate that early Christians actually worshiped Jesus as divine in real historical practice. These external sources show how early Christians behaved in public and how their devotion to Jesus was observed by outsiders. Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Celsus did not write theology; they recorded what Christians were doing. Their descriptions confirm that Christian worship of Jesus was not a late theological idea but a lived reality recognized by non-Christians long before the creation of later doctrinal councils.
Moreover, external historical sources are essential because they provide independent confirmation of claims made within Christian texts. This is a standard historical method. Historians verify events by triangulating internal and external evidence. When Christian writings say that believers worshiped Jesus, and hostile secular sources independently confirm this behavior, the result is a stronger and more credible historical picture. Rejecting all historical sources outside of Scripture leads to historical isolationism, which no responsible historian practices. The external evidence simply reinforces what the New Testament already claims: Christians treated Jesus as divine from the beginning.
The objection that references to Christians in pagan or Jewish literature could have been forged or corrupted over time is historically unsustainable.
While the works of Tacitus, Pliny, and Suetonius originated in classical Latin circles, the majority of our surviving manuscripts date to the Middle Ages and were physically preserved by Christian monks in monastic scriptoria. However, this fact does not support a claim of forgery.
The overwhelming evidence against Christian interpolation lies in the content of the passages themselves (The Criterion of Embarrassment). The passages are consistently hostile, describing Christianity as a “pernicious superstition” (Tacitus), or confusing Christ with an agitator (Suetonius). No Christian scribe would create or faithfully preserve such damaging material. The fact that monks copied these insults demonstrates the integrity of the scribal tradition and the authenticity of the pagan origin.
The other hostile sources were preserved independently of any Church control:
- Jewish polemical literature was preserved exclusively by Jewish communities fiercely opposed to Christianity.
- Celsus’s critique of Christians is preserved within Origen’s rebuttal, whose Greek manuscript tradition shows no textual manipulation in the relevant sections. Modern textual critics affirm that Origen faithfully preserved Celsus’s arguments (antagonistic confirmation).
To argue that all these texts were forged or altered in the same way would require assuming a massive, coordinated conspiracy involving ideologically opposed groups—pagan Romans, Greek philosophers, Jewish scribes, and medieval Christian copyists—all working together over centuries to fabricate the same negative narrative about Christians worshiping Jesus. No credible historian takes such a theory seriously.
Textual critics and classical scholars, including Ronald Syme, Henry Chadwick, Larry Hurtado, and Bart Ehrman, have analyzed the transmission lines and scribal variations. They universally agree that these hostile references are authentic, reflecting the style and vocabulary of their original authors. The uniformity and independence of these testimonies make forgery or corruption a historically implausible explanation. The simplest and most credible conclusion is that Christians were known for worshiping Jesus from the earliest times.
Did Trinitarians Corrupt the Text After Nicaea to Make Jesus Appear as God?
Short answer – no.
The scholarly consensus across the entire spectrum of textual critics, including atheists, agnostics, evangelicals, liberals, and secular historians, is that the doctrine of the Trinity did not create or drive New Testament textual variants. The overwhelming weight of manuscript evidence shows that the earliest texts that call Jesus “God” or place Him in divine categories exist long before the Council of Nicaea.
The SCJ argument collapses when examined against actual manuscript data.
I will walk through the major scholarly refutations and provide quotations throughout, starting with the P66 and P75 manuscripts.
The claim that Trinitarians after Nicaea altered the text to support Christ’s deity is historically impossible because the manuscripts containing the strongest statements of Jesus’ deity pre-date Nicaea by 100 to 150 years.
Examples:
- P66 (John), dated around AD 200
- P75 (Luke, John), dated AD 175-225
- Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus (4th century but containing earlier textual traditions)
We can do a further deep dive on each of the above examples to show that no, the Trinitarians did not “corrupt” the text.
What P66 Says About John 1:1 and John 1:18 and Why This Refutes Any Claim of Post-Nicaean Corruption
P66 is one of the earliest surviving manuscripts of the Gospel of John, dated around AD 200, long before the Council of Nicaea in AD 325. This papyrus contains the beginning of the Gospel, including the two most crucial verses for understanding early Christianity’s belief about Jesus’ identity: John 1:1 and John 1:18. Both of these verses appear in P66 exactly in the form that later orthodox Christianity would defend as affirmations of the deity of Christ. This means that these affirmations were already present in the text of John more than a century before Nicaea.
John 1:1
P66’s text reads:
“καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος”
This is translated into English as:
“And the Word was God.”
This is not ambiguous and does not leave room for the idea that Jesus was merely a messenger of God, a created being, or a figure with derived authority. The grammar is clear, and the earliest surviving manuscript affirms the highest Christology. What is crucial is that this reading is not a later scribal correction. It is found in the earliest stage of the Johannine tradition accessible to us.
Scholars often note that if early scribes wanted to weaken Jesus’ deity, this would be the verse most likely to be targeted. Yet every early manuscript, including P66, preserves the same wording that strongly identifies the Word as God. This is entirely incompatible with Shincheonji’s claim that Christians added statements of Jesus’ deity in later centuries.
What P66 Says About John 1:18
John 1:18 contains a well-known variant between “only begotten God” and “only begotten Son,” and Shincheonji argues that the “only begotten God” reading was a later addition meant to elevate Christ’s divinity. However, P66 completely disproves this claim. P66 reads “only begotten God” and is dated to around AD 200, more than a century before the Council of Nicaea. This shows that the strongest Christological reading was not a post-Nicene innovation but was already present in extremely early manuscripts. It reflects early theological understanding rather than later doctrinal development, and no fourth century council could have influenced its wording. Bart Ehrman, an agnostic textual critic, also affirms that “only begotten God” is the older reading. Since both P66 and other early manuscripts like P75 and Codex Vaticanus contain this reading, the idea that Trinitarians altered the text after Nicaea is historically impossible.
If Trinitarians had modified the text to support their theology, we would expect P66 to preserve a simpler, less explicit reading. Later manuscripts would then be the ones containing stronger affirmations of Christ’s deity. Instead, the opposite is true. The earliest manuscripts contain the highest Christology, and the later Byzantine manuscripts sometimes soften these readings. This evidence shows that high Christology was original to the text of John and was not the product of later doctrinal manipulation. The manuscript record does not support the Shincheonji narrative in any way.
Already, with this variant we can clearly see that Shincheonji’s arguments that the Bible was corrupted for the Trinitarians isn’t quite as strong.
What is P75 and Why it Matters
P75 is one of the most important early New Testament manuscripts ever discovered. It contains portions of Luke 3 to 24 and John 1 to 15, and is commonly dated to AD 175 to 225. This places it more than a century before the Council of Nicaea and long before any alleged fourth century Trinitarian corruption. Textual critics consider P75 to be one of the most reliable witnesses to the early Gospel text because it aligns extremely closely with Codex Vaticanus, a fourth century manuscript that preserves an earlier text tradition. The close agreement between the two manuscripts shows that the text remained stable and was not modified to support later doctrinal developments.
High Christology Passages in P75 That Show Jesus Is God
P75 preserves some of the strongest Christological material in the New Testament, demonstrating that early Christians understood Jesus as divine long before later doctrinal debates. One of the clearest examples is John 1:1 to 5, where the manuscript reads, “and the Word was God,” exactly as found in modern critical editions. There is no variant in P75 that weakens or softens this statement. P75 also contains John 1:18 and preserves the reading “the only begotten God,” which is the strongest textual form and explicitly identifies Jesus as God. Because P75 is dated between AD 175 and 225, this shows that the highest Christological version of the verse existed more than a century before the Council of Nicaea, not as a later addition or doctrinal alteration.
In addition to the prologue, P75 contains several narratives where Jesus is accused of making Himself equal with God. John 5:18 is preserved intact and includes the charge that Jesus “made Himself equal with God,” which directly reflects how the earliest Christian communities interpreted His actions. Similarly, P75 contains John 10:30 to 33, where Jesus says, “I and the Father are one,” and the crowd responds by attempting to stone Him for “making Himself God.” These passages appear in P75 without any scribal hesitation or modification, demonstrating that the high Christology in the Gospel of John was already fully developed and circulating in early Christian communities during the second and third centuries.
Luke’s Gospel in P75 also reinforces this pattern. Luke 7:16, preserved in this papyrus, describes the crowd’s reaction to Jesus’ miracle by saying, “God has visited His people,” indicating that Jesus’ actions were understood as a direct visitation of God. P75 also includes Luke 22:69, where Jesus announces His coming exaltation to sit at the right hand of the power of God, echoing Psalm 110 and placing Him in a divine position of authority. All of these examples in P75 demonstrate consistent, early, and unaltered high Christology. The manuscript does not show signs of doctrinal tampering. Instead, it faithfully preserves a text that already portrays Jesus as divine, confirming that high Christology was original to early Christian belief, not a later development introduced during the fourth century.
Why P75 Demonstrates the Text Was Not Corrupted
One of the strongest reasons P75 disproves later textual corruption is its close relationship to Codex Vaticanus. Although Vaticanus is a fourth century manuscript, it preserves a much earlier textual tradition that aligns almost word for word with P75, which is dated to the late second or early third century. Textual critics have noted that the agreement between the two manuscripts is exceptionally close, far closer than we typically see between manuscripts separated by more than a century. If the text of the Gospels had been altered during the fourth century to support Trinitarian theology, Vaticanus and P75 would differ significantly. Instead, their near-identical character demonstrates that Vaticanus did not introduce new doctrinal elements but rather faithfully preserved an earlier form of the text which P75 confirms.
Another important factor is that P75 predates the major Christological controversies that often motivate conspiracy theories about textual corruption. The readings preserved in P75 existed before the Arian controversy and before the Council of Nicaea, which means these passages could not have been shaped by the later theological struggles of the fourth century. High Christology in P75 is not a response to Arianism, nor is it the result of Nicene editors modifying the text to support a doctrine of Christ’s divinity. Instead, P75 shows that Christians already understood Jesus in divine categories well before these debates emerged, undermining the idea that high Christology was a fourth century invention or a later textual addition.
Finally, P75 itself shows no evidence of scribal modifications intended to elevate Christological claims. Scholars who have examined the manuscript note that it is a careful and consistent copy with minimal corrections. There are no signs of theological tampering, no added phrases to strengthen Christ’s divinity, and no alterations that soften or exaggerate the text’s original meaning. Additionally, other early manuscripts such as P66 and P52 independently attest the same high Christology found in P75. This pattern across multiple early papyri confirms textual stability rather than doctrinal manipulation. Together, these factors show that the high Christology preserved in P75 reflects the original early Christian understanding of Jesus, not a corrupted or altered fourth century text.
P75 and P66 support the Deity of Christ and the Trinity
| Category | P66 (AD 175–225) | P75 (AD 175–225) | Why This Refutes SCJ’s Claim |
| Dating | Second century papyrus containing most of John | Second to early third century papyrus containing Luke and John | Both manuscripts predate Nicaea by 100–150 years, making fourth century doctrinal editing impossible |
| John 1:1 | Preserves “the Word was God” without softening | Same text preserved exactly | Shows Jesus’ divinity was part of the earliest Johannine tradition |
| John 1:18 | Reads “the only begotten God” (μονογενὴς θεός) | Reads “the only begotten God” (μονογενὴς θεός) | Strongest Christology in earliest manuscripts, not a later Trinitarian insertion |
| John 5:18 | Jesus “made Himself equal with God” preserved | Same reading preserved | Confirms that early scribes did not weaken or alter charges of Jesus’ divine equality |
| John 10:30–33 | Contained but with some fragmentary areas; where intact it preserves the accusation “you being a man make yourself God” | Fully preserved, exact same reading | Unbroken tradition showing early Christians did not modify or downplay claims of Jesus’ deity |
| John 14:9 | “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” preserved | Same reading preserved | Demonstrates consistency in divine identity claims across early manuscript lines |
| Luke 7:16 | Not contained in P66 (John only) | “God has visited his people” preserved | Confirms Luke’s divine Christology existed before doctrinal controversies |
| Luke 22:69 | Not contained | “Son of Man seated at the right hand of the power of God” preserved | Shows Jesus’ exaltation to divine authority is early and stable |
| Manuscript Quality | Carefully copied, with minimal theological corrections | Extremely careful text, highly stable; regarded as one of the most reliable early witnesses | Scribes were not altering texts to fit later theology; they were preserving what they received |
| Relationship to Vaticanus | Shares Alexandrian textual characteristics | Nearly identical to Vaticanus, showing strong textual continuity | Vaticanus did not introduce new readings; it preserved earlier ones attested in P66 and P75 |
| Independent Corroboration | Aligns with early papyri like P52 and P90 | Aligns with P66, P52, and later uncials | High Christology is attested across independent manuscript families |
| Historical Context | Written before Arian controversy and Nicene debates | Same early timeframe | Early Christians already believed Jesus is divine; later doctrinal disputes did not shape these texts |
| Scholarly Consensus | Considered an early, reliable witness for John | Considered one of the most accurate and stable early NT copies | Textual critics agree both P66 and P75 preserve authentic early Christian theology, not corruption |
Codex Vaticanus
Codex Vaticanus is an early fourth century Greek manuscript of the Bible, likely produced between AD 325 and 350, and preserved today in the Vatican Library. It contains almost the entire Old Testament in Greek and most of the New Testament, making it one of the most complete and earliest surviving biblical codices. Scholars consider Vaticanus one of the most important witnesses to the original New Testament text due to its close alignment with earlier Alexandrian papyri, including P66 and P75. This alignment demonstrates that Vaticanus preserves a textual tradition reaching back to at least the second century. Its consistent readings across both narrative and doctrinal passages show no signs of scribal attempts to strengthen or manipulate Christological content, which confirms its integrity as an early, unaltered transmission of the Gospel tradition.
Codex Sinaiticus
Codex Sinaiticus is a mid fourth century Greek manuscript, dated between AD 330 and 360, discovered at St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mount Sinai. It contains the entire New Testament and most of the Old Testament, along with two early Christian writings: the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas. Like Vaticanus, Sinaiticus represents the Alexandrian text type and shows strong agreement with earlier manuscripts such as P66, P75, and P52, which date to the second and third centuries. This consistency demonstrates the remarkable stability of the New Testament text across more than a century of transmission. There is no evidence of doctrinal editing or theological redaction in Sinaiticus, even in passages central to debates about Christ’s divinity. Instead, it reflects the same high-Christology readings preserved in earlier papyri.
Why These Codices Refute the SCJ Conspiracy Theory
The claim that fourth century scribes altered the biblical text to support the doctrine of Jesus’ divinity cannot survive engagement with the evidence preserved in Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Both manuscripts contain readings that match second century papyri with extraordinary precision. Their alignment with P66 and P75, which predate the Council of Nicaea by more than a century, demonstrates that the Gospel text was already stable long before the fourth century. If major doctrinal editing had occurred after Nicaea, we would expect Vaticanus and Sinaiticus to differ significantly from earlier papyri in passages related to Christ’s identity. Instead, the manuscripts present nearly identical high-Christology readings across the same verses, proving the text remained unchanged.
Furthermore, neither codex shows signs of scribal tampering designed to enhance Trinitarian doctrine. There are no insertions, marginal glosses, or textual modifications that exaggerate Jesus’ divine nature. On the contrary, both manuscripts preserve readings that later scribes in the Byzantine tradition occasionally softened, such as the “only begotten God” reading in John 1:18. If the fourth century church had attempted to impose doctrinal uniformity through textual alteration, the evidence in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus would show traces of such activity. Instead, they demonstrate careful, conservative copying practices consistent with early textual transmission, not doctrinal manipulation.
Finally, these codices preserve all major passages that affirm Jesus’ divine identity, including Titus 2:13, Colossians 2:9, Philippians 2:6, Hebrews 1:8 to 10, and Romans 9:5, in the same form found in earlier manuscripts. This means high Christology was embedded in the text long before fourth century ecclesiastical politics. Scholars across a wide range of backgrounds, including secular and critical scholars, affirm that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus preserve earlier traditions rather than invent new ones. The consistency between early papyri and these fourth century codices decisively disproves the idea of a post-Nicene textual conspiracy and demonstrates continuity of Christian belief from the earliest centuries.
Quotes from non-Trinitarian Biblical Scholars
I will now quote non-Trinitarian biblical scholars to debunk SCJ’s claim that the Trinitarians changed and altered the Bible to support the Deity of Christ, and the Trinity.
And there are many more quotes that I can produce. It’s clear that the concepts of the Trinity, and the Deity of Christ, were not added into the text.
Quotes from non-Trinitarian Biblical Scholars
On Vaticanus and Sinaiticus preserving earlier textual traditions
“Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are among our oldest and best manuscripts. They reproduce texts that were already in existence centuries before them.”
— Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, p. 50
On the impossibility of a fourth-century Trinitarian text corruption
“There is no evidence that the scribes of the fourth century changed the text in order to make it conform with the emerging orthodox view.”
— Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, p. 27
On early manuscripts agreeing with later codices
“These earliest manuscripts [P66, P75] often agree with later manuscripts such as Vaticanus. This shows that the text existed in a relatively stable form from an early period.”
— Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, p. 94
Metzger co-authored the standard critical text with Ehrman. His work is scholarly, not confessional.
On Vaticanus representing a very early text
“Codex Vaticanus… is one of the most trustworthy witnesses to the text of the New Testament. Its ancestry must go back to a very early stage.”
— Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, p. 47
On no doctrinal manipulation in fourth-century codices
“There is no evidence that scribes deliberately corrupted passages to support orthodox doctrine.”
— Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, p. 302
Koester is not a Trinitarian theologian but a historian of Christian origins.
On early papyri and fourth-century codices showing no major evolution
“The consistency between early papyri and the great uncial codices of the fourth century reveals that there was no significant alteration of the text.”
— Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, p. 240
Aland helped develop the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament and approached the text historically.
On Vaticanus and Sinaiticus containing earlier textual forms
“Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are the primary witnesses of the Alexandrian text, whose roots reach deep into the second century.”
— Kurt Aland, Text of the New Testament, p. 107
Expected Pushback 1 John 5:7
The phrase in 1 John 5:7 known as the Comma Johanneum (“the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one”) is not part of the original New Testament text. It appears only in very late medieval Latin manuscripts and does not appear in any early Greek manuscript of 1 John. It is absent from P66, P75, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, and all other major uncial manuscripts. It is also not cited by any early church father when debating the Trinity, which would be expected if the verse were known at that time. The evidence shows that the Comma entered the Latin tradition gradually through marginal notes that later scribes mistakenly copied into the main text. This development began centuries after the time of the apostles.
The historical trajectory of the Comma Johanneum’s insertion is well documented. Early Latin scribes placed explanatory notes in the margins around 1 John 5:6-8, and some later manuscripts incorrectly incorporated these notes into the biblical text. By the medieval period, a few Latin manuscripts included the expanded Trinitarian phrasing, even though no Greek manuscript contained it. When Erasmus produced his first printed Greek New Testament in 1516, he excluded the Comma because he could not find any Greek manuscript that contained it. Only after intense pressure from church authorities did Erasmus state that he would include the verse if a Greek manuscript could be found. Shortly afterward, one such manuscript appeared, almost certainly created for this purpose, leading Erasmus to insert the Comma into a later edition, from which the King James Version eventually drew.
This example does not support the Shincheonji claim that Christians altered Scripture to strengthen the doctrine of Jesus’ divinity. The late addition of the Comma Johanneum actually demonstrates the opposite. It proves that when an interpolation occurs, it leaves clear and detectable evidence in the manuscript tradition. Textual critics are able to identify late additions precisely because early manuscripts do not contain them. The Comma Johanneum appears far too late to influence early Christian doctrine, shows no presence in the Greek textual line, and never infiltrated the early manuscript families that preserve the New Testament. Its absence from all early papyri and major codices demonstrates that the process of textual corruption claimed by SCJ did not occur in the early centuries.
The fact that the only major Trinitarian-sounding addition appears in medieval Latin manuscripts rather than early Greek ones undermines the SCJ conspiracy theory. If fourth century Christians had attempted to alter Scripture at or after the Council of Nicaea, the earliest Greek manuscripts, such as P66, P75, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus, would reflect such changes. Instead, these manuscripts consistently preserve strong Christological statements that predate later doctrinal debates. Scholars across the theological spectrum, including Bart Ehrman, Bruce Metzger, and J. K. Elliott, agree that the Comma Johanneum is not original. Its late appearance confirms the reliability of early manuscript traditions and shows that the New Testament text remains stable across centuries, making the SCJ claim of intentional post-Nicene corruption historically unsupported.
A timeline of Christians calling Jesus God
AD 95 – Revelation written
AD 110 – Ignatius calls Jesus God
AD 112 – Pliny says Christians worship Jesus
AD 150 – Justin calls Jesus God
AD 180 – Irenaeus cites high Christology verses
AD 200 – P66 and P75 contain high Christology readings
AD 325 – Nicaea
AD 350 – Vaticanus and Sinaiticus preserve same readings as P66 and P75
This shows that:
- the verses existed
• the worship existed
• the interpretation existed
• the manuscripts existed
long before the fourth century
Of course, Shincheonji would still make excuses to ignore these facts from both secular sources, Christians sources, and church history. At this point, it’s just an example of cognitive dissonance.
Here are even more quotes from early church Christians proving Jesus is God.