At the time of the late Renaissance and Reformation, when classical texts were first being edited critically, Erasmus of Rotterdam produced a Greek text in which the words “in earth” were missing. At this time most of Europe was using the Latin Vulgate as its Bible version, so Erasmus was quickly criticized for omitting the passage. He replied that the words were not in any of the Greek manuscripts.
Somewhat rashly, however, he added that if a Greek manuscript containing the passage could be produced, he would include it. Unfortunately, in time such a manuscript was found. It was not an old one; it was written about A.D. 1520. Erasmus knew that this was not valid evidence at all, since the manuscript probably included the passage because of the Latin texts. Nevertheless, he had given his word. So he included the words in the third edition of his text, published in 1522. However, he also added a note in which he expressed his belief that the new Greek manuscript had been written on purpose just to embarrass him. From Erasmus’ text the passage was taken over into German by Luther and into English by Tyndale. Erasmus’ text became the basis of the great edition of the Greek text by Stephanus in 1550, which in turn became the Textus Receptus or “Received Text” from which most subsequent translations, including the Authorized Version, were made.
There is nothing wrong with the three heavenly witnesses in themselves, of course; the point is simply that they were not in the text as John wrote it, nor did they appear in any text of the passage at all for several centuries thereafter. What John wrote is what the modern versions give to us.
The second and much more difficult problem is the meaning to be given to John’s enigmatic reference to the “water and blood” in verse six and to the threefold “Spirit…water…blood” in verse eight. What is certain from the passage is that John is here attempting to establish firmly the historical factualness of the incarnation and earthly life of Christ and further to cite the testimony of God in regard to it. But certainly about what the phrase means seems to be beyond reach for those of us who, unlike John’s readers, no longer know the significance of this part of his theological vocabulary.
There are three main interpretations to these phrases, to which a fourth may possibly be added.
1. The reference to water and blood most naturally reminds the student of the similar reference in John’s Gospel in which attention is called to that “blood and water” which flowed from Christ’s side after it had been pierced with a spear by a soldier at the time of the crucifixion. In fact, if the Gospel of John is to be allowed to interpret the epistles of John, as it has on other occasions, this would even be the logical place to start. Moreover, when this is done it is at once seen that there are important similarities. For one thing, in both passages John seems to put special evidence on the blood and water. For another, in both passages the idea of testimony is prominent (cf. John 19:35).
