Upvote:2
1 John 5:7, 8
The evidence for and against this "comma" is a follows. The manuscripts are identified, as usual, by their catalogue number according to the Gregory-Aland system with a date in brackets. See the list in UBS5 and NA28. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript
01 (4th) omit
03 (4th) omit
02 (5th) omit
048 (5th) omit
024 (6th) omit
044 (800) omit
018 (9th) omit
020 (9th) omit
33 (9th) omit
2464 (9th) omit
1739 (10th) omit
81 (1044) omit
2138 (1072) omit
323 (11th) omit
436 (11th) omit
945 (11th) omit
1175 (11th) omit
1243 (11th) omit
1846 (11th) omit
2298 (11th) omit
2344 (11th) omit
1241 (12th) omit
1505 (12th) omit
1611 (12th) omit
1735 (1200) omit
1852 (13th) omit
1292 (13th) omit
1067 (14th) omit
1409 (14th) omit
1881 (14th) omit
322 (15th) omit
Late (post 15th cent) MSS (undated)
61 include
88 include
221 include
429 include
629 include
636 include
918 include
2318 include
It is NOT included in Wescott & Hort, NA28, UBS5, SBL, Majority Text, Byzantine Text, F35, Jerome's Vulgate (~400 AD), THGNT, NIVGNT.
It is included on the Orthodox text (by edict), TR and Clementine Vulgate. It is clearly a late addition from the vulgate.
1 Tim 3:16
The difference in this verse is "theos" (= God in TR and majority Byzantine text) vs "hos" (= he or who in NA28, UBS5 etc). In any case the sense of the verse is scarcely changed.
The problem with Newton's critique is his dependence on a straw-man argument. Because two texts supporting the Trinitarian view are dubious, then is Trinitarianism dubious? Hardly. There are numerous other arguments in favour of Trinitarianism in the NT.
Upvote:3
In the one remaining answer, there is only one brief mention of Newton, which is, "The problem with Newton's critique is his dependence on a straw-man argument." The answer demonstrates that. However, I wonder if it might be helpful to have a closer look at Newton, to grasp why he wrote so critically of the two scriptures in question.
I asked a question on Christianity Stack about Newton's theology back in September 2020 because of evidence that he had become anti-trinitarian; apparently at the end of his masterly work, Principia Mathematica he indicated his anti-trinitarian stance, even if not clearly. I received some informative answers to my question. Links were given, one showing that Newton wrote in support of a Samuel Clarke who had written in 1712 his arguments against the Trinity doctrine. Also, that Clarke and Newton seemed to have used arguments against the Trinity doctrine used by the Socinian Johann Crell in his De Deo et Ejus Attributis. My question is at Is there a link between Socinianism and Sir Isaac Newton's conclusion to his Principia Mathematica (1687) where he attacks the Trinity doctrine?
This does not tackle specific 'trinitarian' scriptures that Newton argued against, but given his sympathy to the anti-trinitarianism of the Socinian movement some 80 years before Newton, the reasons for his critique of 1 John 5:7 and 1 Timothy 3:16 would be the same reasons promoted by the Socinian movement.
If you could provide a link to An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture which details Newton's reasons, then the answer to your question would be found there, and perhaps it would show links to Socinianism. There might even be clear evidence that Newton's critiques were just the same as the Socinian's critiques. Given that you seem to know of this essay / article / book, and if you have read it, you would already know the answer to your question. However, if you have only heard of this paper, then the need is to find it, for therein should be Newton's reasons for his critiques.
Only once we know the reasons for Newton's critiques of those two particular scriptures can trinitarians then address their objections to his arguments. As it is, we can only address objections to general critiques against those scriptures. But it is Newton's reasons that you ask trinitarians to object to. His reasons would agree with Socinian reasons, yet the published work, An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture would be the only way of being totally sure about that.