Greetings All!

I found the following article online by Jeffrey Khoo, Ph.D.
(Dr. Khoo serves as academic dean and lecturer at Far Eastern Bible College in Singapore.)

Johannine Comma - 1 John 5:7-8

A Preliminary Examination of the Antiquity and Authenticity of the Johannine Comma
Does a Clear, Biblical Proof Text Exist for the Doctrine of the Trinity

"1 John 5:7-8 in the King James (Authorized) Version reads, "For there are three that bear record (witness) 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." The italicized words constitute the Johannine Comma (Gk: koptein, "to cut of?’). The Comma proves the doctrine of the Holy Trinity — that "There are three persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory" (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q 6).

Why is this verse seldom used to teach the doctrine of the Holy Trinity? Other references are often cited, but why not 1 John 5:7f? One will often reply, "How can I when my Bible does not have it?" Therein lies the problem. With 1 John 5:7f missing in so many of the modern Bible versions such as the New International Version, the Revised Standard Version and the New American Standard Bible, it is no wonder that many Christians are ignorant of this verse. And even if they do know that this verse exists, they hesitate to use it because they have been deceived into thinking that it is not part of God’s Word. The NIV Study Bible, for instance, says that 1 John 5:7f "is not found in any Greek manuscript or New Testament translation prior to the 16th century." On account of this they argue that 1 John 5:7 is spurious.

It is not true that 1 John 5:7 is absent in all pre-l6th century Greek manuscripts and New Testament translations. The text is found in eight extant Greek manuscripts, and five of them are dated before the 16th century (Greek miniscules 88, 221, 429, 629, 636). Furthermore, there is abundant support for 1 John 5:7 from the Latin translations. There are at least 8000 extant Latin manuscripts, and many of them contain 1 John 5:7f; the really important ones being the Old Latin, which church fathers such as Tertullian (AD 155-220) and Cyprian (AD 200-258) used. Now, out of the very few Old Latin manuscripts with the fifth chapter of First John, at least four of them contain the Comma. Since these Latin versions were derived from the Greek New Testament, there is reason to believe that 1 John 5:7 has very early Greek attestation, hitherto lost. There is also reason to believe that Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (AD 340-420), which contains the Johannine Comma, was translated from an untampered Greek text he had in his possession and that he regarded the Comma to be a genuine part of First John. Jerome in his Prologue to the Canonical Epistles wrote, "Irresponsible translators left out this testimony [i. e., 1 John 5:7f] in the Greek codices." Edward F. Hills concluded, "It was not trickery that was responsible for the inclusion of the Johannine Comma in the Textus Receptus, but the usage of the Latin speaking church."

This leads us to the so-called "promise" of Erasmus. Westcott and Hort advocate Bruce Metzger made this claim, which became the popular argument against the Johannine Comma. He wrote, "Erasmus promised that he would insert the Comma Johanneum, as it is called, in future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a copy was found—or made to order." This view against the authenticity of 1 John 5:7f is parroted by many even today. Is this what truly happened? H. J. de Jonge of the faculty of theology, Leiden University, an authority on Erasmus, says that Metzger’s view on Erasmus’ promise "has no foundation in Erasmus’ work. Consequently it is highly improbable that he included the difficult passage because he considered himself bound by any such promise." Yale University professor Roland Bainton, another Erasmian expert, agrees with de Jong, furnishing proof from Erasmus’ own writing that Erasmus inclusion of 1 John 5:7f was not due to a so-called "promise" but the fact that he believed ‘the verse was in the Vulgate and must therefore have been in the Greek text used by Jerome." The Erasmian "promise" is thus a myth!

It has been suggested that the Johannine Comma did not come from the apostle John himself but from an unknown person who invented and inserted it into 1 John 5 so that Christianity would have a clear Trinitarian proof text. Up until this point in time, no one has been able to identify this mysterious person who tried to "help" the church. He is probably a fictional character. In any case, it is highly unlikely that 1 John 5:7f is the work of a well-meaning interpolator. When we look at the text itself, the phrase, "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit," naturally reflects Johannine authorship (cf. John 1:1, 14). An interpolator would rather have used the more familiar and perhaps stronger Trinitarian formula—"the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." "The Word" or "The Logos" of 1 John 5:7f points to the apostle John as its source, for it is distinctively John who used the term "the Word" to mean "Christ" in all his writings.

There is nothing in the Johannine Comma that goes against the fundamentals of the Christian faith. It is thoroughly Biblical and theologically accurate in its Trinitarian statement. There is no good reason why we should not regard it as authentic and employ it as the clearest proof-text in the Scripture for the doctrine of the Holy Trinity."

I find Dr. Khoo's arguments quite convincing. Metzger, in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, argues that "as regards intrinsic probability, the passage [The Johannine Comma] makes an awkward break in the sense." [1] Upon close examination of the immediate context, however, one finds that this assertion is far from true.For example, if the Comma is omitted, verse 6 and verse 8 are thrown together, "which gives a very bald, awkward, and meaningless repetition of the Spirit's witness twice in immediate succession." [2] Furthermore, the omission causes the concluding phrase of verse 8 (and these three agree in one) to contain an unintelligible reference. [3] What is "that one" (to en) to which "these three" are said to agree?In other words, "that one" in verse 8 which designates One to whom the reader has already been introduced does not have antecedent presence in the passage."Let verse 7 stand, and all is clear, and the three earthly witnesses testify to that aforementioned unity which the Father, Word, and Spirit constitute."[4] The passage makes absolutely no sense if the Comma is omitted.The phrase "in earth" in verse 8 as well as the entire ninth verse would also have to be knocked out to regain the sense because both infer that the "witness of God," as promulgated in the Comma, has already been introduced.

In His Service,
Steve

Of course the earliest occurrences of the Comma are found in the writings of the ECFs when not talking about this passage. The earliest extant Greek manuscripts which have the comma all have it in the margin, not in the text itself.

Of the 8 Greek manuscripts with the comma, 4 have it in the margin, 4 have it in the text.

Jaltus,

In the margin or in the text, they still have it.

In His Service,
Steve

LOL, there is a huge difference, though. A marginal note is often a note the scribe wrote himself, it is not part of the passage (see the bizarre notes in B, for example).

In other words, it is all the difference in the world.

It's counterproductive to argue for the Trinity from such a tenuous foundation as the Comma. Why do it, when there is such overwhelming proof in undisputed parts of the NT? Metzger himself points out in some of this evidence in his interview in Lee Strobel's book The Case for Christ.

As I said in the other thread (in Christology), Matt28:19 is essentially the same thing and much stronger at that. There's no need to appeal to the passage in 1Jn, genuine or not. ;)

As I think Holding said on his take of the passage, if the Comma was original to 1 John, why didn't the ECFs use it to help refute all the heresies that occurred regarding the Trinity in the 2nd through 4 centuries?

[Edit: It was Dr. Wallace, whom Holding linked to on his page. Wallace's page can be found here.]

Dear Jaltus,

Let's take another look at that brief exchange:

RS: "The NIV Study Bible, for instance, says that 1 John 5:7f "is not found in any Greek manuscript or New Testament translation prior to the 16th century.""

J: "The earliest extant Greek manuscripts which have the comma all have it in the margin, not in the text itself."

RS: "In the margin or in the text, they still have it."

J: "LOL, there is a huge difference, though."

Istm that you shouldn't be laughing. RevSteve has just shown that the statement in the NIV Study Bible is /false./ The difference between a MS having a reading in the margin vs. having a reading in the text is -- I hope you will agree -- not as big as the difference between a MS not having a reading (which is what the NIV Study Bible says) and having it.

This does not make the Johannine Comma genuine. I think it is an accretion. But RevSteve has pointed out that a statement commonly used against the passage, found in a publication which is relied upon and echoed by thousands of Christians, is incorrect.

He has also pointed out -- as I did elsewhere -- that Dr. Metzger's story about Erasmus including the J.Comma because he was obligated to do so by a rash promise is a fabrication.

(And, as I mentioned previously, Dr. Metzger has admitted that he was mistaken! The thing is, his tall tale has been circulating for decades. His retraction of it is little-known -- since it is in a footnote in an appendix of his book "The Text of the New Testament." It's like shouting, "Erasmus only included this because he was tricked" and then whispering, "Oops. That was a made-up story." A quiet retraction is better than none, but it does not undo the damage of the initial mistake, and that is something it should have been made to do, imho.)

The result: I suspect that most people who reject the Johannine Comma do so because they, or someone whose opinion they value, have been misled by the statements of Dr. Metzger and the statement of the NIV Study Bible (and other works with similar statements). I seriously doubt that more than 10% of them are aware of the evidence from Cyprian even exists, and probably less than 1% are aware of the dots next to First John 5:7 which appear in Vaticanus (which you can find out more about via a Google search for "Vaticanus Umlauts").

Surely this ought to prod us to ask, "Why does there seem to be this apparent need, on the part of Dr. Metzger and the producers of the NIV Study Bible, to promote their position via the dissemination of statements that are untrue?" Even if they are morally innocent (which I like to think is the case), the sustained use of incorrect data to support a position ought to bother any observer.

Yours in Christ,

Waterrock

The NIV being wrong is not news to me. It is a translation with a lot of mistakes made in it (e.g. the entire OT, hehe). I havbe never read that portion of the Study Bible myself...but let me take a look.

If the NIV means that there is no Greek manuscript which has it in the text, they are correct. If it means none have it at all, they are incorrect.

However, this shows a very thin shade of meaning, which I find difficult to buy into, due to Ottobonianus. Some scholars set this aside since it is a diglot, and the Greek could have been added to harmonize with the Latin. However, a more substantial note should be given within the NIV Study Bible in order to flesh out what they mean. As it stands, it is incorrect.

The handout I gave to my class on it:


The Johannine Comma


One of the most well-known text critical problems in the entire New Testament is that of I John 5:7-8. The text of the modern texts read, “For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.” but the older texts read, “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.”

Which reading is correct?

There are four manuscripts which have the longer reading in the text, namely:

• 1. 61 (Codex Britannicus): Dated to the early 1500s.
  2. 629 (Codex Ottobonianus): Dated to the 1300 or 1400s, and is a Latin/Greek diglot.
  3. 918 (an Escorial from Spain): Dated to the 1500s.
  4. 2318 (Bucharest MS, from Romania): Dated to 1700s.

There are four texts which have the longer reading as a side note:

• 1. 88 (copy of Codex Regius): Dated to the 1500s, copied from a MS from the 1100s.
  2. 221: Dated to the 900s.
  3. 429: Dated to the 1500s.
  4. 636: Dated to the 1400s.

It is quite clear from this listing of manuscripts that the Comma only occurs in four texts and as a marginal note in four others, meaning that the overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts do not in fact have this reading. As for those listed above, at least 2318, 918, and 429 could have been made after Erasmus incorrectly included the reading in the third edition of his Greek text.

The other fascinating thing to note is that each text which has this edition originated in Spain at least indirectly. The Latin translations, from which the text derives, certainly come only from Spain, or possibly Northern Africa, which were quite closely connected socially at that time. The Early Church Fathers who wrote in Greek never included this phrase, but a few of the Latin Fathers did. The first appearance is in Priscillian’s work, and he died around 385 AD. He was a Modalist who had no problem reading the Comma, as he believed it said the three were one within Christ. However, this citation appears in a dogmatic portion of the text, and no clear introduction for quoting scripture is used. No Trinitarian or theologian who believed in the three persons (whether in the correct way or not) previous to Priscillian ever used the phrase.

Therefore, modern scholars have correctly decided that this longer version is an addition. It probably originated as a theologian’s note to himself when reading the text, and it somehow creeped into a copy of that manuscript, which in turn got copied by others.

Jaltus,

Actually, it does not bother me AT ALL, to know that only 4 Greek manuscripts have the Johannine Comma in the text!

After all, it does not seem to bother the publishers of the Revised Version, the American Revised Version, the RSV, NASB, NIV, etc. when readings are supported by only TWO manuscripts, the Vaticanus & Sinaiticus, now, does it?

Therefore, I would say that the Johannine Comma has TWICE as much manuscript support as those types of passages!

In His Service,
Steve

Are you KJVO? Or are you more simply arguing for the Johannine comma?

Iron Metro,

No, I am not King James Version Only. However, as a general rule, I am VERY skeptical of liberal scholarship, which tends to automatically prefer Alexandrian text readings over Byzantine Text readings.

I DO prefer the KJV & related Bibles, such as the NKJV, and the Greek text I use is a Stephanus text with a textual apparatus, showing the variants & what support they have or do not have.

I see the Johannine Comma issue as a perfect example of a passage which is left out, because it appears in the text of only 4 manuscripts, as well as the margins of 4 others. But preferring a reading only found in Vaticanus & Sinaiticus, is somehow ok.

In His Service,
Steve

The reason that Vaticanus and Sinaticus get such respect is because of how much the papyri support them. However, I myself would rather see a papyri based Greek text with a textual apparatus added.

Yesterday @ 06:32 PM post located here
Bib Lit Major:

As I think Holding said on his take of the passage, if the Comma was original to 1 John, why didn't the ECFs use it to help refute all the heresies that occurred regarding the Trinity in the 2nd through 4 centuries?

[Edit: It was Dr. Wallace, whom Holding linked to on his page. Wallace's page can be found here.]

If someone from a group we consider heretical used this argument would we not say, "That is an argument from silence. And silence only proves silence?" And I wonder how many people who make that argument have actually read the documents from the 2nd thru 4th centuries and know just what scriptures and arguments they did use.

I have read Dr. Wallace's article before and while I have great respect for him as a Greek scholar I think this article leaves a lot to be desired. I am quoting the bulk of the article here and have highlighted the parts I have a problem with.

Note for example, "It is quite significant, however, that (a) he [Cyprian] does not quote ‘of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spirit’ as part of the text; this is obviously his interpretation" Even in the NT we find the writers NOT quoting the OT verbatim. Therefore that is hardly a convincing argument.

Note the use of speculative language throughout, "likely", "apparently", "indicates", "natural step", "may have been written", etc.

Wallace also uses the argument from silence, "historical problems of regarding the Comma as authentic is how it escaped all Greek witnesses for a millennium and a half." As well as the quote from Metzger in paragraph (2).

• The Comma occurs only in about 8 MSS, mostly in the margins, and all of them quite late. Metzger, in his Textual Commentary (2nd edition), after commenting on the Greek MS testimony, says this (p. 648):
  
  (2) The passage is quoted in none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.
  
  (3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome ... or (c) as revised by Alcuin...
  
  The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle [italics added] is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text.
  
  Thus, a careful distinction needs to be made between the actual text used by Cyprian and his theological interpretations. As Metzger says, the Old Latin text used by Cyprian shows no evidence of this gloss. On the other side of the ledger, however, Cyprian does show evidence of putting a theological spin on 1 John 5:7. In his De catholicae ecclesiae unitate 6, he says, “The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one’; and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one.’” What is evident is that Cyprian’s interpretation of 1 John 5:7 is that the three witnesses refer to the Trinity. Apparently, he was prompted to read such into the text here because of the heresies he was fighting (a common indulgence of the early patristic writers). Since John 10:30 triggered the ‘oneness’ motif, and involved Father and Son, it was a natural step for Cyprian to find another text that spoke of the Spirit, using the same kind of language. It is quite significant, however, that (a) he does not quote ‘of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spirit’ as part of the text; this is obviously his interpretation of ‘the Spirit, the water, and the blood.’ (b) Further, since the statement about the Trinity in the Comma is quite clear (“the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit”), and since Cyprian does not quote that part of the text, this in the least does not afford proof that he knew of such wording. One would expect him to quote the exact wording of the text, if its meaning were plain. That he does not do so indicates that a Trinitarian interpretation was superimposed on the text by Cyprian, but he did not changed [sic] the words. It is interesting that Michael Maynard, a TR advocate who has written a fairly thick volume defending the Comma (A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8 [Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995] 38), not only quotes from this passage but also speaks of the significance of Cyprian’s comment, quoting Kenyon’s Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London: Macmillan, 1912), 212: “Cyprian is regarded as one ‘who quotes copiously and textually’.” The quotation from Kenyon is true, but quite beside the point, for Cyprian’s quoted material from 1 John 5 is only the clause, “and these three are one”—the wording of which occurs in the Greek text, regardless of how one views the Comma.
  
  Thus, that Cyprian interpreted 1 John 5:7-8 to refer to the Trinity is likely; but that he saw the Trinitarian formula in the text is rather unlikely. Further, one of the great historical problems of regarding the Comma as authentic is how it escaped all Greek witnesses for a millennium and a half. That it at first shows up in Latin, starting with Priscillian in c. 380 (as even the hard evidence provided by Maynard shows), explains why it is not found in the early or even the majority of Greek witnesses. All the historical data point in one of two directions: (1) This reading was a gloss added by Latin patristic writers whose interpretive zeal caused them to insert these words into Holy Writ; or (2) this interpretation was a gloss, written in the margins of some Latin MSS, probably sometime between 250 and 350, that got incorporated into the text by a scribe who was not sure whether it was a comment on scripture or scripture itself (a phenomenon that was not uncommon with scribes).
  
  http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/cyprian.htm

OS, I understand and respect that you have much more knowledge of Greek and Hebrew than I do, but arguments from silence are not always fallacious. Why would one not quote that? That text would be so handy that it'd be easy to have that as a favorite verse that one used all the time. That Fathers skipped over it would only be a good argument for a partial quote if that Father were addressing something completely different than issues regarding the Trinity, which may be the case, but still, that it is not mentioned stands tall in my mind.

For me what is compelling is not the lack of mention, it is the specific way it is mentioned.

Certain Latin fathers mention it briefly without applying it to the text of I John, with one using it in the context of I John but in comments upon it rather than a quotation of it.

That not a single Greek father mentions it is is what makes the case. If nobody mentions it, then it is a true argument from silence, which is just slight evidence. But with the Latin fathers using it and then the Greek fathers ignoring it altogether, it shows a very interesting textual stream.