RESTORED TEXTUS RECEPTUS Apparatus

Albert Barnes
"II. It is missing in the earliest versions, and, indeed, in a large part of the versions of the New Testament which have been made in all former times.
It is wanting in both the Syriac versions - one of which was made probably in the first century; in the Coptic, Armenian, Slavonic, Ethiopic, and Arabic.

III. It is never quoted by the Greek fathers in their controversies on the doctrine of the Trinity -
a passage which would be so much in point, and which could not have failed to be quoted if it were genuine;
and it is not referred to by the Latin fathers until the time of Vigilius, at the end of the 5th century.
If the passage were believed to be genuine - nay, if it were known at all to be in existence, and to have any probability in its favor -
it is incredible that in all the controversies which occurred in regard to the divine nature, and in all the efforts to define the doctrine of the Trinity,
this passage should never have been referred to. But it never was; for it must be plain to anyone who examines the subject with an unbiased mind,
that the passages which are relied on to prove that it was quoted by Athanasius, Cyprian, Augustin, etc., (Wetstein, II., p. 725) are not taken from this place,
and are not such as they would have made if they had been acquainted with this passage, and had designed to quote it.
IV. The argument against the passage from the external proof is confirmed by internal evidence, which makes it morally certain that it cannot be genuine."

"Those who use the AV or NKJV are used to: “There are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.”

The words in italics are only found in five late Greek manuscripts (less than 1% of the total) and part of the Latin tradition, from which they came.
To be more precise, the manuscripts are: (61)[16th], (629)[14th], (918)[16th], 2318 [18th], 2473 [17th], wherein the cursives in ( ) all differ from each other;
the two that agree verbatim with TR were probably copied from it.
The only one that is clearly early enough to have served as TR’s exemplar, 629, is far too different—it lacks the seven last words in TR,
omits another five, changes five and adds two—19 out of 40 words is too much; the Textus Receptus is not based on cursive 629,
so it must be a translation from the Latin (or its exemplar is lost). The shorter reading makes excellent sense."