Of all the passages in the Bible, few have caused as much controversy as 1 John 5:7-8. There is a clause present in the KJV and a few other translations that most modern bibles don’t include. This clause is so controversial, it even has it’s own name: the “Johannine Comma”.
The question is this: Did the Apostle John write those words, or were they added later?
We’ll tackle that today.
(A disclaimer first: I am not a “King James Only” Christian. I prefer to spend my serious study time with an interlinear bible. I recognize that no translation is perfect, which is why I started learning ancient Greek a few years ago.)
The Johannine Comma
Before we get to the evidence, let’s all get on the same page about the topic. Here is 1 John 5:7-8 in the NASB, and most other modern translations read almost identically.
1 John 5:7-8 NASB
7 For there are three that testify:
8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
Here is the 1 John 5:7-8 in the King James Version, which is probably the most widely known version to contain the Comma. (and yes, I’m going to call it “the Comma” in this article.)
1 John 5:7-8 KJV
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
The portion I’ve highlighted in red is the Johannine Comma.
The debate centers around whether this clause was written by the Apostle John and removed by unscrupulous copyists, or whether it was added later (either accidentally or on purpose) by copyists.
To be clear, I don’t have a dog in this fight. The Comma doesn’t change doctrine one bit, though it would make the Trinity clearer. I have an opinion which will probably become clear as you read. However, my opinion was formed by the evidence listed below.
It’s worth noting that this doesn’t change doctrine one bit; it simply states the Trinity clearly. (You can read this article for a ton of quotes by pre-Nicaean early church fathers on the Deity of Christ.)
Evidence Against the Johannine Comma
(In a courtroom, the prosecuting attorney goes first. We’ll do the same here.)
The biggest piece of evidence put forth by those who believe the Johannine Comma was added is the rarity of Greek manuscripts that contain it.
This is the centerpiece of the argument against the Comma, and with good reason. This is easily the strongest argument against it’s inclusion. That said, it’s not Ironclad.
The crux of the argument is this:
We have over 5000 Greek New Testament manuscripts, and only 11 of them contain the Comma. Further, these 11 are all late manuscripts, and nearly half have the Comma added later than the date of writing.
However…
(There’s always a however)
That statement is factually accurate, but also misleading.
While we do have over 5000 Greek New Testament, only about 500 of them contain 1 John. Of the manuscripts that do contain 1 John 7-8 (the disputed portion) the vast majority of those manuscripts are “late manuscripts” dated from after the 10th century. If you care, here is the list of “early” manuscripts that contain 1 John 5:7-8, but don’t contain The Comma.
- 01 (4th century)
- B (4th century)
- A (5th century)
- 048 (5th century)
- 0296 (6th century)
- L (8th century)
- P (9th century)
- K (9th century)
- Ψ (9th century)
- 049 (9th century)
- 056 (10th century)
- 0142 (10th century)
So while 5000 is an impressive number, the actual number of “early” manuscripts that contain 1 John 5:7-8 is only 12. And no, none of those contain the Comma. That is fairly strong evidence, however it’s not the only evidence. There is equally compelling evidence to include the Comma. (which we’ll get to in a bit.)
If you care, here are the Greek manuscripts that do contain the Comma. Notice they are later manuscripts, however that’s not nearly as conclusive as you might think. (More on why in a bit.)
- 221 margin (10th century, Comma added later)
- 177 margin (11th century, Comma added later)
- 635 margin (11th century, Comma added later)
- 88 margin (12th century, Comma added in 16th century)
- 429 margin (14th century, Comma added later)
- 629 (14th century)
- 636 margin (15th century, Comma added later)
- 61 (16th century)
- 918 (16th century)
- 2473 (17th century)
- 2318 (18th century)
I initially dismissed the Comma because of the lack of Greek manuscripts which support it. That was a mistake. There is a LOT of other evidence to consider.
The other arguments against including the Johannine Comma are as follows:
- It also appeared very late in the Latin bibles
- The early church fathers didn’t quote it
However, neither of those charges are true. As you will see in a few moments, the Comma was quoted by the early church fathers and it existed very early in the Latin too.
Rebuttal from the Johannine Comma Supporters
To start with, we’ll answer the strongest (and almost only) evidence from “the Comma was added” school of thought:
Why is the Johannine Comma absent from nearly all early Greek manuscripts?
I have talked about context in almost every article on this website so far, and with good reason. In this case, we’re going to discuss historical context.
Firstly, you must remember that the printing press is a (relatively) recent invention. Until its invention in the mid 15th century, scribes had to copy everything by hand. The vast majority of scribes did their best to faithfully copy the text without adding personal bias.
However, not all of them were so honest.
Since the bible was written, unscrupulous men men have inserted changes to fit their own doctrinal bias. It’s sad, but true. For some reason some copiers thought it was fine to change scripture to fit their personal bias. Some did it because they thought they were right, and some did it for personal gain. But whatever the reason, copiers have occasionally changed the words.
In fact, one of the early church fathers says this EXACT thing has been done to the Comma.
The following is a quote from Jerome. Jerome was born in 347 and died in 420. He is best know for translating the original Latin Vulgate bible, which is the official bible of the Catholic church to this very day.
“Just as these are properly understood and so translated faithfully by interpreters into Latin without leaving ambiguity for the readers nor [allowing] the variety of genres to conflict, especially in that text where we read the unity of the trinity is placed in the first letter of John, where much error has occurred at the hands of unfaithful translators contrary to the truth of faith, who have kept just the three words water, blood and spirit in this edition omitting mention of Father, Word and Spirit in which especially the catholic faith is strengthened and the unity of substance of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is attested.”
(Jerome in the prologue to the Canonical Epistles appended to Codex Fuldensis, Translated by T. Caldwell.)
Who were the “unfaithful translators” that Jerome mentions?
The most obvious answer is the Arians.
The Arians were the followers of a man named Arius, who was born in 256 AD and died in 336 AD. Arius believed that Jesus was a created being. He believed the Father created Jesus and therefore Jesus was inferior to the Father. Obviously Arius didn’t believe the “One God in three persons” understanding of the Trinity.
(His views were similar to modern day Jehovah’s Witnesses.)
Arius gathered a large body of followers who believed this teaching. This was such a big issue, it prompted the first ecumenical council of the Church: The First Council of Nicaea. At the council, they affirmed the Deity of Christ and condemned Arius’ teachings as heresy.
Arius himself was exiled.
For a further history lesson, I’m going to quote an excellent article on this same topic:
After his condemnation, Arius fled to Syria-Palestine and succeeded in converting a large number of both the common masses and influential church leaders to Arianism (such as Eusebius of Nicomedia, who had previously sheltered Arius during his trials, and Eusebius of Caesarea). This region was also under the control of the Emperor Constantius II (r. 317-361, r. solely 337-361), who was also an Arian. It was during this time that several orthodox bishops such as Eustathius of Antioch, as well as the noted defender of trinitarianism, Athanasius, were banished, and the eastern churches handed over to Arian leadership (for instance, Arius’ old protector, Eusebius of Nicomedia, was given the patriarchate of Alexandria, in Egypt). Hence, for nearly half a century – including the time period in which Eusebius of Caesarea was performing his textual critical work on the Greek New Testament which was eventually affirmed and “codified” in the textual line leading to manuscripts such as Sinaiticus – the major Greek-speaking regions of the Empire were under Arian control.
Source
For about fifty years, the Arians had almost complete control of the creation of new copies of the New Testament.
Now, remember those earliest Greek manuscripts that contain 1 John 5:7-8? You probably don’t remember the dates, so I’ll copy/paste them below.
- Vaticanus written c. 325–350
- Sinaiticus written c. 330–360
- Alexandrinus written c. 400–440
- Ephraemi written c. 450
You’ll notice the earliest manuscripts fall comfortably within the time span were the Arians were in control of New Testament bible copying. The two earliest might have been before, but they were likely during and the others were copied afterward.
Now, if the Arians were in control of the copying of the New Testament for about fifty years, could they have omitted the Comma because it was devastating to their belief system?
It seems likely.
At least, Jerome (who lived through it) thought so.
We know that Jerome believed “unfaithful translators” had purposely omitted the Comma because of doctrinal bias against the Trinity. Assuming that Jerome was correct, the Arians fit this bill perfectly. Further, Jerome was born in 347 and died in 420. He would have been familiar with this controversy his entire adult life.
We know this for sure, every Greek New Testament we have containing 1 John 5:7-8 was written during or after the Arians were in control of the Bible’s copying.
That’s a good, plausible reason why it doesn’t appear in most surviving Greek manuscripts. (and notice I said the Greek manuscripts; we’ll get to the Latin ones soon)
Further, the earliest Greek manuscript (the Vaticanus or codex B, written 325 – 350) contains minor evidence of the Comma.
We know this because of the “umlaut”.
An umlaut has several meanings, but in this context it refers to a note a scribe added to indicate there was a textual variant. An umlaut consists of dots placed next to the text to indicate there is some doubt as the correct reading of the passage. The Vaticanus manuscript contains upwards of 750 such indicators. (For further reading on umlauts in Vaticanus, Bible.org has an illuminating article.)
The Vaticanus scribe consistently places the umlaut next to the line supplying the beginning of a questionable reading, whether long or short (and whether the text is included in or omitted from Vaticanus)
J. Edward Miller in “Some Observations on the Text-Critical Function of the Umlauts in Vaticanus, with Special Attention to 1 Corinthians 14.34-35” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26 (2003) 217-36.
Below is a scanned photo of 1 John 5:6-8 in the Vaticanus manuscript, clearly showing the umlaut next to 1 John 5:7.
There is no other significant textual variant in that verse, so we can safely assume the umlaut there refers to the Comma. No it’s not strong evidence, but it does indicate that the earliest Greek manuscript was at least aware of the Comma.
For further evidence, let’s look into the corruption of other parts of 1 John.
A thorough examination of this is beyond the scope of this article. However, This article deals with the textual variants in other parts of 1 John in great detail. Suffice it to say, that the following passages have significant textual variants in the oldest manuscripts. Further, they all touch on the Deity of Christ in some way. (Coincidence…?)
- 1 John 2:23b
- 1 John 4:3
- 1 John 5:6
- 1 John 5:8 (the ending, not the part with the Comma)
- 1 John 5:13
Jerome isn’t the only one who thought that 1 John had been corrupted by someone. (Arians maybe?) Socrates of Constantinople – born 380, died 440 – had the following to say about Nestorius and 1 John 4:3. It’s worth noting that Nestorius’ views on Jesus were far closer to the Arians than the Trinity.
Now in any event, he did not perceive that in the Catholic epistle of John it was written in the ancient copies, ‘Every spirit that severs Jesus is not from God.’ For the removal of this [passage] out the ancient copies are understandably by those who wished to sever the divinity from the human economy. And thus by the very language of the ancient interpreters, some have corrupted this epistle, aiming at severing the humanity from the divinity. But the humanity is united to the divinity, and are not two, but one.
(Historia ecclesiastica, VII:32)
Again, someone saying that 1 John had been “corrupted” by unscrupulous copyists who sought to deny the Deity of Christ (Arians maybe?) And remember, Jerome and Socrates of Constantinople were alive at the same time and lived through this controversy.
So we have two respected early church fathers – plus evidence from the manuscripts themselves – that someone was altering 1 John to remove references to Jesus Deity.
If I was going to remove evidence of Jesus’ Deity, the Comma would be the first thing I’d take out. It’s quite possible that the Arians (who controlled copying of the New Testament for half a century) left the Comma out of the Greek manuscripts on purpose.
Notice I said Greek New Testament.
The Latin manuscripts are a different story. (we’ll get to that in a minute.)
Hanlon’s Razor – Accidental Omission?
There’s a semi-famous saying that goes like this:
“Never attribute to villainy that which can be explained by incompetence.”
It’s possible that – if The Comma was written by John – it’s deletion was entirely accidental. To quote from James Snapp, Jr. (And BTW, he’s one of the textual critics I most respect. His blog The Text of The Gospels is often my first stop for researching textual variants. Ironically, he doesn’t think The Comma is original to John.)
In addition, it is possible to explain the early loss of the CJ as a consequence of two simple scribal errors. If a copyist were to copy the longer reading in a narrow column, and transpose the words “εν τη γη” (“on the earth”) so as to appear before the word “τρεις” (three) in verse 8, the text would look like this:
οτι τρεις εισιν
οι μαρτυρουντες
εν τω ουρανω
ο πατηρ ο λογος και
το αγιον πνευμα
και ουτοι οι τρεις
εν εισιν και εν
τη γη τρεις εισιν
οι μαρτυρουντες
το πνευμα και το
υδωρ και το αιμα
και οι τρεις εις το
εν εισιν·And if a subsequent copyist were to lose his line of sight and jump from the words οι μαρτυρουντες at the end of the second line to the identical words at the end of the ninth line, accidentally skipping the intervening words (in bold print), the resultant text would be:
οτι τρεις εισιν
οι μαρτυρουντες
το πνευμα και το
υδωρ και το αιμα
και οι τρεις εις το
εν εισιν·which is the text found in almost all Greek manuscripts of First John.
(Source. bold his, red highlighting mine)
So it’s possible that – if The Comma was written by John – then the omission could be the result either an accidental mistake copying, purposeful deletions by the Arians, or a combination of the two. Perhaps villainy and incompetence joined forces, perhaps not.
It’s also worth noting that the scribal mistake of writing something once which should be written twice – and skipping everything in between – (called”haplography“) is one of the more common scribal errors.
The Early Church Fathers Quoted the Comma
The earliest possible reference to the Comma comes from Tertullian. He was born somewhere between 155-160 and died somewhere between 220-240. This is somewhat important because he predates Arius and his Arian teachings by several decades.
Tertullian only alludes to the Comma; he doesn’t directly quote it.
“Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent persons, one from the other, which three are one, not one [person], as it is said, “I and my Father are One.””
He alluded to it again, though it’s just an allusion and not a direct quote.
For if in the mouth of three witnesses every word shall stand: — while, through the benediction, we have the same (three) as witnesses of our faith whom we have as sureties of our salvation too— how much more does the number of the divine names suffice for the assurance of our hope likewise! Moreover, after the pledging both of the attestation of faith and the promise of salvation under three witnesses, there is added, of necessity, mention of the Church; inasmuch as, wherever there are three, (that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,) there is the Church, which is a body of three.”
The allusion to the Comma isn’t 100% clear, but it’s there. 1 John 5 talks much about salvation and verses 7-8 talk about witnesses. Tertullian seems to indicate the witnesses in mind here are the Father Son and Holy Spirit, which would fit with the Comma.
Cyprian clearly quotes the Comma. He lived from 200 – 258, and so also predated Aruis and the Arian controversies.This is a crystal clear allusion to the Comma.
“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.”
(Treatise I:6)
Let’s pause for a moment. There is no place in all of scripture (that I can’t think) with the phrase “and these three are one” except the Comma. None. If you can think of one besides The Comma, send me an email or leave a comment and I’ll edit this article in a heartbeat.
That means something here.
Cyprian specifically says “it is written” and then quotes “and these three are one”. Following the Biblical examples, people only use that phrasing when quoting the Bible. The only place that phrase appears in the whole Bible is The Comma. Therefore, The Comma is a Biblical quote according to Cyprian. (not that’s he’s infallible, but it’s strong evidence.)
Origen (born 184, died 253) directly alludes to the Comma.
“Behold, the eyes of bondservants in the hands of their lord, as the eyes of a bondwoman in the hands of their lady, so are our eyes towards the Lord our God, until he may pity us; spirit and body are the bondservants of the Lord Father and Son; but the soul is the bondwoman of the lady Holy Spirit. And the Lord our God is three, for the three are one.“
Athanasius (Born 296-298, died 373) directly alluded to the Comma.
“But also, is not that sin-remitting, life-giving and sanctifying washing [baptism], without which, no one shall see the kingdom of heaven, given to the faithful in the Thrice-Blessed Name? In addition to all these, John affirms, ‘and these three are one.‘” (Translation by KJV Today)
Priscillian of Avila quotes the Comma in 380 AD. Curiously, the order is reversed, but all the content is there.
“As John says, There are three that give testimony in earth: the water, the flesh and the blood; and these three are one and there are three that give testimony in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Spirit; and these three are one in Christ Jesus.
Augustine directly alludes to the Comma.
“Therefore God supreme and true, with His Word and Holy Spirit (which three are one), one God omnipotent, creator and maker of every soul and of every body;”
And in his exegesis of 1 John 5:8, Augustine also said:
Three things then we know to have issued from the Body of the Lord when He hung upon the tree: first, the spirit: of which it is written, ‘And He bowed the head and gave up the spirit:’ then, as His side was pierced by the spear, ‘blood and water.’ Which three things if we look at as they are in themselves, they are in substance several and distinct, and therefore they are not one. But if we will inquire into the things signified I by these, there not unreasonably comes into our thoughts the Trinity itself, which is the One, Only, True, Supreme God, Father and Son and Holy Ghost, of whom it could most truly be said, ‘There are Three Witnesses, and the Three are One:’
The direct quote by Cyprian before 260 is very compelling, but it’s not the most compelling. There’s one quote that provides even stronger evidence.
In 484, the Vandal King Huneric called the council intending to persuade many North Africa Bishops to convert to Arianism. The king failed in his attempt. The North African Bishops chose Eugenius of Carthage as their spokesman in defense of the Trinity. Eugenius indisputably used the Johannine Comma to defend the doctrine of the Trinity.
“. . .and in order that we may teach until now, more clearly than light, that the Holy Spirit is now one divinity with the Father and the Son. It is proved by the evangelist John, for he says, ‘there are three which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.“
In my mind, this is absolutely convincing evidence all by itself. Even if there was no other evidence (and there is more evidence) this single piece of evidence is extremely convincing. To use an example: it’s as convincing as finding a videotape of a criminal suspect committing the crime.
Why is it so strong?
Because this was a conference of Bishops from both sides of the debate. If the Johannine Comma was added to the scriptures, the Arian Bishops would have thrown a major fit and called foul. If there was any doubt about it’s authenticity, the Arians would have made a HUGE issue out of it.
But they didn’t.
Not one peep.
They didn’t complain that Eugenius used the Comma, even though they vehemently disagreed with it’s content. To me, that says everyone at the Council of Carthage – both Arian and Trinitarian alike – accepted the Comma as scripture. To me, that says even the Arians knew it belonged. There were over 350 Bishops at the Council or Carthage. Think about that number, and realize they all agreed it was scripture.
For the Trinitarians to accept the Comma doesn’t prove much. But for the Arians to accept it…
That means something.
The Johannine Comma in the Latin
So far, we have focused on the Greek scriptures and ignored the Latin translations. But now let’s look at the Latin. “But Latin is a translation and not the original, so how can it mean much?” Is a typical response. However, there is precedent for using the Latin
For example, the Vulgate preserved the reading, “Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father” at 1 John 2:23 even while the Byzantine Majority Text failed to preserve it…
…The NIV and the ESV include a sentence in Psalm 145:13 that does not appear in the majority of Hebrew manuscripts. The extra sentence is included simply because it is deemed to fit well structurally and it has the support of one Masoretic manuscript, the Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint, Syriac, and Vulgate. Furthermore, the NIV in Genesis 4:8 has Cain saying to Abel, “Let’s go out to the field” based on the Samaritan Pentateuch, Septuagint, Vulgate, and Syriac. No Hebrew manuscript (not even the Dead Sea Scrolls) has this reading in Genesis 4:8. The NIV, ESV and NASB in 1 Chronicles 4:13 add “and Meonothai” from the Vulgate despite its absence in the Hebrew. The NIV, ESV and NASB in 2 Chronicles 15:8 add “Azariah the son of” from the Vulgate despite its absence in the Hebrew. Thus there is a consensus that Latin readings can be reliable at times.
Further, we know that the Latin readings are less likely to have been corrupted by Arian influence. (which two respected church fathers explicitly stated happened.) Unfortunately, the oldest manuscript of the Latin (the Codex Fuldensis)was written in the mid 6th century.
It does not contain the Comma…
But it also made changes in the Gospels.
The four Gospels in the Codex Fuldensis are in form of the Diatessaron. What is the Diatessaron? It’s the earliest “harmony of the Gospels” written by Tatian. Tatian combined the four separate gospel accounts into a single coherent narrative. Essentially, he took the unique elements of all four gospels and combined them into one book.
But he also made some changes.
For starters, the Diatessaron omits the Genologies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3. And to quote an article from GotQuestions.org:
The Diatessaron isn’t without its problems. It seems that Tatian added some material not found in the original four Gospels, such as the extra-biblical story of a light that illuminated the Jordan River at Jesus’ baptism. Some readings in the Diatessaron are attributed by church fathers to the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of the Ebionites, and other non-canonical works.
To put it bluntly, accuracy wasn’t the primary goal of the Codex Fuldensis because they made changes.
However, the vast majority of Latin manuscripts do contain the Comma. 19th century textual critic F.H.A. Scrivener estimated that
“49 out of 50 [Vulgate] manuscripts testify to this disputed Comma”
(F. H. A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the New Testament Textual Criticism, 4th Ed., Vol. 2, (New York: George Bell & Sons, 1894), p. 403).
49 out of 50; that’s 98%. Granted, these are all based on Jerome’s Vulgate and we know Jerome considered the Comma to be authoritative.
Issues of Style, Grammar, and Consistency
The best explanation I’ve found for this is quoted below.
The grammatical difficulty which is found in this passage if the Comma is deleted rests on a rule of Greek grammar (as well as in many other languages) which demands gender agreement among parts of a sentence. If the Comma is left in place, the masculine article, participle, and number in the apodosis of verse 7 then agree with the two masculine (Father, Word) and one neuter (Spirit) nouns…
…The problem for those who support the deletion of the Comma is that, if the Comma does not appear in the text, then the masculine predicate in the apodosis of verse 7 is mated with the three neuter nouns (water, blood, spirit) found in verse 8 (which then becomes the subordinate clause), a serious grammatical error. The problem disappears with the Comma in place,”
Source (emphasis mine)
We also have gender agreement rules in English.
For example, you would never say “The girl picked up her purse himself” because the masculine pronoun “himself” disagrees with both the feminine noun “girl” and the feminine pronoun “her”. That’s the kind of grammatical mistake you would simply never make. Even a child wouldn’t make this mistake.
However, the Apostle John made this exact kind of mistake if The Comma wasn’t written by him.
Is that likely?
It’s seems far fetched to me, especially given the overall quality of John’s writing. Not impossible, but very far fetched. So, let’s look at this further. I’m going to re-quote The Comma with the Greek grammatical genders added. Then, we’ll look at it.
The Comma’s Gender issue Explained
A note first:
This is slightly hard to explain because in English, we don’t have “gendered verbs”
In Greek, you can have verbs with gender (participles). That is, I could write “I was running” using a masculine noun/verb, and you would understand that “I” am male. However, just like in English – you need to have gender agreement in your sentence.
So you can’t write “I(masculine) was running(feminine)” because they don’t match gender. That’s horrible grammar, just like the “The girl picked up her purse himself” example above.
Make sense?
(I hope so because I’m not sure how else to explain it. :/ )
So let’s look at The Comma again with the Greek genders added.
- Relevant Masculine words will be colored Blue
- Relevant Feminine words will be colored Red
- Relevant Neuter words will be colored Purple.
Here we go.
1 John 5:6-9 KJV
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
Now, the genders all agree with The Comma included.
In verse 7 with The Comma, all the relevant words “οἱ μαρτυροῦντες εν τῷ οὐρανῷ” (the testifying in the heaven) are masculine, matching “ὁ πατήρ” (the father) and “ὁ λόγος” (the Word) = no problem. The gender of the verbs match the genders of the related word, so it works.
(Sharp eyed readers will notice that “Holy Spirit” is in the neuter gender. This isn’t a problem because there are gender matching words and a conjunction between the verb and non-gender matching word.)
In verse 8 with The Comma, you have the masculine “οἱ μαρτυροῦντες” (the testifying) mated with the feminine “τη γη” (the earth). To answer a set of words that’s both masculine and feminine, you use a neuter. For an example: “he said ABC, she said XYZ; but they agreed on 123“. In that example, “they” is neuter, so it can answer both a feminine and masculine noun at the same time because of the neuter gender.
Now, without The Comma.
1 John 5:6-9 NASB
7 For there are three that testify:
8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
Without The Comma, you have the neuter words “το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα” (the Spirit and the water and the blood) answering masculine words “οἱ μαρτυροῦντες” (the testifying). You can’t have masculine answered by neuter. You can have both masculine and feminine answered by neuter, but not just masculine. That’s where the gender issue lies, and it’s a major no-no as we’ve seen.
Further, I’m not the only one who thinks so.
At least one early church Father argued the same
Further, we know at least one early church father noticed this grammatical issue. Gregory of Nazanzius said the following in his Fifth theological oration:
What about John then, when in his Catholic Epistle he says that there are Three that bear witness, the Spirit and the Water and the Blood? Do you think he is talking nonsense?
First, because he has ventured to reckon under one numeral things which are not consubstantial, though you say this ought to be done only in the case of things which are consubstantial. For who would assert that these are consubstantial?
Secondly, because he had not been consistent in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourself disclaim in the case of Deity?
Gregory was arguing the same grammatical point as the previous quote. That means Gregory of Nazanzius was arguing that the Johannine Comma belongs in the Bible.
So now we have have two highly respected early church fathers (Jerome and Gregory of Nazanzius) saying that the Comma belongs in the Bible. Plus we have a third early church father (Socrates of Constantinople) who said people were messing with 1 John to remove references to the Deity of Christ.
It’s easier to remove than Add
I’ll just take a moment to talk about this. It’s FAR easier to remove/ignore something than it is to add it. This goes double for an important book like the bible. It’s a lot easier to catch an addition than an omission.
Further, what’s the motive to add it?
The trinity was already an accepted doctrine by at least Tertullian’s time. (200, give or take 20 years) Further, The Comma was directly quoted by Cyprian before 260. For the Comma to have been added by copyists, the addition must have been extremely early.
I understand why the Arians would want to remove the Comma. But why would a Trinitarian add a verse to support a doctrine that was already widely believed?
Anyone?
One more thing that always bothered me about this passage
(And to be clear, I’m not saying this is evidence.) I’ve read this verse many times and something always seemed… Off about it. There’s something about it that just doesn’t fit perfectly.
Here’s the verse with just a little extra context.
1 John 5:6-9 NASB
6 This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.
7 For there are three that testify:
8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
9 If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son.
It makes some sense I suppose. Verse 6 says the Spirit testifies and verse 9 references the testimony of God, which could be from the Holy Spirit back in verse 6. It makes some sense.
However, if you look at it with the Comma added, it just makes more sense.
1 John 5:6-9 NKJV
6 This is He who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth.
7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.
9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for this is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son.
The “witness of God” in verse 9 makes a LOT more sense when paired with the “Three that bear witness in heaven” from verse 7. Likewise, the “witness of men” in verse 9 makes more sense when paired with the “three that bear witness on earth” of verse 8.
Like I said before, this isn’t evidence. However, the verse makes a whole lot more sense with the Comma present.
Conclusion
To summarize:
The arguments for the Comma being added are thus:
- It doesn’t appear in any early Greek manuscripts (Which you might expect because the Arians were in charge of the Greek manuscripts for a long time)
The arguments for the Comma being written by the Apostle John are thus:
- What’s the motive for adding it because the Trinity was already accepted by at least 260?
- It was quoted or alluded to by a large number of early Church fathers
- It was exactly quoted by Cyprian before 260
- Socrates of Constantinople said that “some have corrupted this epistle” of 1 John because they wished to separate Jesus humanity from his deity.
- Jerome specifically said the passage had been removed by “Unfaithful translators” (who we would guess are the Arians)
- Gregory of Nazanzius says the Comma belongs.
- It is present in 98% of the Latin copies (which were virtually free from Arian influence)
- It was accepted by at least 350 Bishops – many of whom were Arians – at the Council of Carthage.
It’s the points in red that really pushed me into believing that the Apostle John wrote the Comma. A super early quotation, plus two highly respected early church fathers, plus the Arians accepted it as scripture, even though it directly countered their foundational belief.
That’s good evidence.
If you say the Comma wasn’t written by John, then how do you explain:
- Cyrprian quoting it before 260
- Jerome’s explicit testimony that it was removed
- The Grammatical problems with John’s writing without The Comma
- Over 350 Bishops – including a LOT of Arians – accepting it as scripture at the Council of Carthage
Anyone?
(if you have an answer please put it in the comments below)
Great read Brother!
I will definitely use this article in apologetics!
Best defence that I have found about this passage. Masterpiece:). You made my day Brother!
Thank you. 🙂
Foi a melhor resposta que encontrei sobre o assunto, parabéns irmão!!!!muito obrigado, posso traduzir para o português e publicar no meu blog?
[Google Translate translation: “It was the best answer I found on the subject, congratulations brother !!!! thank you very much, can I translate into portuguese and post on my blog?”]
Thanks for the kind words 🙂 and absolutely you can re-post it, with only two conditions: (1) please include a link back to the original article here. (2) Please host the image on your own website.
I had to read this a second time. Respected teachers were giving me doubts. I am back-believing in the comma!
ADMIN NOTE: thanks to this comment, I added a section answering his objection. Thanks Φίλιππος! (Philip for those who don’t read Greek.)
.
Thank you for writing this article! I hope your Greek studies are going well.
Here’s my feedback: Doesn’t the Greek grammar argument above actually defeat itself?
1 John 5:7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες εν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι·
1 John 5:8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἕν τῇ γῇ, τὸ πνεῦμα, καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ, καὶ τὸ αἷμα· καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσὶν.
According to the grammar argument, the Comma would simply move the problem from 1 John 5:7 to 1 John 5:8. Either with or without the Comma, we have a plural masculine followed by three neuter nouns.
I see this passage more like:
John 14:6 λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή· οὐδεὶς ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, εἰ μὴ δι’ ἐμοῦ.
Here Jesus equates Himself with three feminine nouns. Obviously, Jesus is not saying He is feminine, nor is anyone saying He used poor grammar.
If we take the participial phrase τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες to be substantive rather than adjectival, we don’t have a problem including the Comma or excluding it. With that phrase functioning as a noun, we can have it in the plural masculine, yet still equate it with nouns of any gender just like how Jesus equated Himself with nouns of grammatical gender different from both His natural gender and grammatical gender. It is only if we take the phrase to be functioning as an adjective that we would have grammatical gender disagreement.
My take is that the argument from Greek grammar is making a problem where there was none.
My final thoughts: I can see compelling evidence for the Comma being Scripture and compelling evidence for it being added. But my faith is not shaken in the slightest because the doctrine of the Trinity is not based off a single proof text, but is a doctrine developed across the body of Scripture. I see a tendency for well meaning followers of Christ to dig their heels in on the most disputable topics. Christians used to contend for the faith by debating with lost heretics over the character of God, but now Christians are debating with other Christians over questions that engender strife. Who is winning except the evil one?
God bless you! Thanks again for sharing this research.
EDIT: I added much of the following to the article.
Here’s why I see the gender issue disappearing with The Comma, instead of just moving to verse 8.
In verse 7 with The Comma, all the relevant words “οἱ μαρτυροῦντες εν τῷ οὐρανῷ” (the testifying in the heaven) are masculine, matching “ὁ πατήρ” (the father) and “ὁ λόγος” (the Word) = no problem.
In verse 8 with The Comma, you have the masculine “οἱ μαρτυροῦντες” (the testifying) mated with the feminine “τη γη” (the earth). To answer a set of words that’s both masculine and feminine, you use a neuter. For an example: “he said ABC, she said XYZ; but they agreed on 123“. In that example, “they” is neuter, so it can answer both a feminine and masculine noun at the same time because of the neuter gender.
Without The Comma, you have the neuter words “το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα” (the Spirit and the water and the blood) answering masculine words “οἱ μαρτυροῦντες” (the testifying). That’s were the gender issue lies, and it’s a major no-no as I pointed out in the article.
As for John 14:6 which you mentioned. I don’t see a gender problem there. My Greek resources say that “Ἐγώ” (the “I” in “I am”) doesn’t convey gender despite being a personal pronoun. It’s not neuter either; it just doesn’t convey it (like non-participle Greek verbs – and English verbs too – don’t convey gender). Therefore, I don’t see a gender disagreement problem with Jesus’ words in John 14:6.
I felt in my heart that the comma should be in 1 John, but until this article I didn’t quite have it settled in my mind. This article settled the issue for me. Thank you!
You’re welcome. 🙂
It’s too bad, without an identifiable prophet or Apostle whom the public believes and can trust, there will be no final answer. This is since academics relies on agreeability and study and regular people who basically vote on what God intends or means.
Luke 2:25-30 Simeon identifies baby Jesus
Luke 2: 37 – 38 Anna identifies baby Jesus
Matthew 16:14 -17 Jesus tells Peter his understanding is from his father not from man.
The three scriptures above are three simple examples of regular people who had help from Heaven to identify who Christ was without using scripture. I am sure there are more.
Arias was more correct than either Jerome or Erasmus, who were Catholic minions, and you should study Hebrew, which is a much older language, before you study Greek, because there were 22 letters in the Ancient Hebrew Aleph-bet, but there are 27 letters in the Modern Hebrew Aleph-bet, but there was no numerical “0” in the Ancient Hebrew, Greek, or Latin numbering systems, which is quite important to the spiritually minded, just as Paul wrote to the church in Rome, in Romans 8:6. You should read, and study, Numbers 23:19, so you could gain a better understanding of 1Timothy 2:5, and 2Timothy 2:15, so you could gain an understanding of 1Timothy 3:16, but with all the manuscript divisions, untranslated words, and diacritic markings, it is no wonder the one church, which Jesus established, remains divided, and the Johannine Comma is just another example, because few have even begun to understand that Zephaniah 3:9 is now a reality, and the name Zephaniah occurs 10x in the Hebrew OT, where it is spelled 2 different ways,in Hebrew, but wtth diacritic markings, it is spelled 10 different ways, and John clearly told us, in Revelation 22:18-19, that we should not take away or add to the “book”, G975, which is spelled “βιβλιω”, in Greek, but G975 is spelled 5 different ways in the Greek NT.
It gave me a new perspective on why the comma is disputed and what could have happened. Having understood scripture in its entirety, I am a trinitarian with or without the comma. This write up however, makes me believe, that God was direct to the point in declaring his nature – 3 consciousness in one being and not just -say ok son, go read and find out. It is just that division and eventual cult that resulted from it is being pushed by the devil to divide and conquer those who do not want to dig deeper in the knowledge of the scripture
The big question is whether the Holy Spirit is a Person. John 14-16 Jesus says the Holy Spirit is a Person. Then why doesn’t Paul include the Holy Spirit in any of the salutations to God the Father and Jesus Christ our Lord? Why doesn’t First John include the Holy Spirit in 1 John 2:23? Chuck Missler’s answer is the Holy Spirit is an unnamed silent partner of the Godhead. Paul does include the Holy Spirit in Titus 3:4-6 (God our Savior, the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ our Savior) and the last verse in 2nd Corinthians. And Paul writes about the Spirit and the Holy Spirit alot but in 2nd Corinthians Paul compares the Spirit who is the only One who knows what God thinks as similar to the spirit of a man because only the spirit of a man knows what the man is thinking (verses 10-11). Verse 16b “we have the mind of Christ.” The mind of Christ and the Spirit are the same.
The Arians believed that Jesus did not preexist before his birth (that He was not the LORD or YHWH of the old testament) and the Holy Spirit was not a Person which is a little different than the Jehovah Witnesses who believe the archangel Michael who is the chief Prince of Israel (Daniel 12:1) became Jesus of Nazareth but probably do not see the Holy Spirit as a Person. JW’s have a modified Arian view.
Since Paul’s openings and 2 John 2:23 don’t emphasize the Person of the Holy Spirit, I think the litmus test of orthodoxy (The Holy Spirit is a Person) is not a true test. I acknowledge John 14-16 as Jesus saying the Holy Spirit is a Person. I see scripture as inconsistent. A minor detail for me. It’s unexplained. Or make a choice and be tolerant of the other view.
Since the Word of 1 John 5:7 (KJV) bears record *in heaven*, and Jesus/the Son/the Lamb bears no record *in heaven* (only during his earthly ministry, before and after his death and resurrection from the dead), 1 John 5:7 (KJV) proves that Jesus/the Son/the Lamb is NOT the Word (capital “W”) of John 1:1-14, 1 John 1:1, 1 John 5:7 (KJV), and Revelation 19:13.
1 John 5:7 (KJV) refutes the deity of Christ/incarnation of the Word as the Son of God …
May the LORD be with you (my favorite greeting of my family in Christ-Ruth 2)! I appreciate the depth of writing and the color that makes your writing very easy to follow. Have you heard of the New English Translation? It’s my preferred translation for readability, and I love that the notes are included for free in the Bible app (as ellipses). If you haven’t read the purpose and design of the NET, I would suggest reading it to see if you would also place its reliability and translation practice among your preferred translations. I am grateful for your perspective on the CJ, as it contained many references to the early church fathers, whom I love to read and learn about. As the NET textual criticism note states, I have doubt that the CJ was truly original, although it clearly doesn’t change the deity of Christ as co-equal with the Father (the Athanasian Creed is beautifully written). Christ clearly agitated the Pharisees in John 8:58 with His equating Himself with YHWH and in John 10:30 He again stated that He is One with the Father. If the Arians were so adamant that Christ was inferior, would that not also have changed these passages, as well any “I am” statement through the rest of John? Thank you for your faithfulness and love!
I have heard of the NET Bible and even own one; I’m glad I paid so little for it though. While many like it for the footnotes, I’ve found them to be quite biased. The actual translation work itself is far less literal than I would prefer and betrays a liberal bias and willingness to change the text to fit doctrinal biases. (See John 1:1 for example; while I agree with his theological position, altering the text is to fit ANY position is simply unacceptable.)
Just as bad – maybe worse – the NET Bible also perverts the Bible by going the gender neutral route. While it’s not as bad as some, it purposely and intentionally mistranslates words to be more gender inclusive when there’s no textual basis to do so.
I still only recommend the NKJV and NASB.
Just a few points:
1. Though present in the Latin witnesses, it is not simply nearly absent in the Greek, but also in the Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic and Slavonic.
2. Codex Fuldensis doesn’t just contain the Diatessaron, it also contains the other books of the New Testament (not affected by Tatian’s work) and a prologue by Jerome on the Gospels. So the Scribes had knowledge of Jerome’s Vulgate, his prologues and didn’t include the comma.
3. The Latin Codex Amiantus, significantly, also lacks the comma.
4. The idea that Trinitarian controversies and tampering with the text only seemed to emerge with the Arians and that all early Greek manuscripts were produced under Arian control is misleading at best. An examination of the provence of the various manuscripts does not bear this up and the Patristic evidence would certainly provide more mention of this. Consider the case of John 1:13: Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Justin Martyr all referenced John 1:13 as having a different form than we currently have, and that its present form is the result of tampering (singular rather than plural, and referring to Christ not Christians, see Thomas F. Torrence book “The Incarnation” for more information). They do not show the same knowledge with regard to the Johanine Comma, nor do they cite it or defend it or refer to it. Contrary to how you state, Tertullian, (had he known or alluded to the comma as you claim) would not have instead cited John 10:30. It must be clearly said that there was an ongoing battle between Orthodoxy and Heresy from the beginning and the identity of Jesus has always been at stake. So the relative paucity of patristic evidence for this verse is actually incredibly damning.
5. Cyprian is writing from Carthage and Augustine as well is connected to Carthage, and Augustine in his Homily Contra Maximinum on 1 John 5, 7-8 shows “knowledge” of the comma, but not as Scripture, but as an interpretive gloss and by way of allegorical exegesis deduces the theology of the ‘Johnanine Comma’.
6. In your argument from the Greek grammar you miss that the verse reads “τρεῖς/three εἰσιν/are οἱ/the ones μαρτυροῦντες/bearing witness”: “three”, “the ones”, and “bearing witness” are all masculine plural. The participle in question is periphrastic and agrees in tense and number with “εἰσιν/are”.
Your entire grammatical argument is actually disagreeing with Gregory’s own statements.
Gregory of Nazianzus is actually referring to the disagreement between “Three” and “Spirit, Water, Blood”. Since “Three” is masculine, why are the nouns it refers to all neuter: Spirit, Water and blood. He cannot be referring to the Johanine comma because the word for “Father” in the comma is masculine. Your quote of Gregory has him saying:
“Secondly, because he had not been consistent in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter…”
Gregory is arguing that though John’s grammar is inconsistent with their rules this doesn’t make him wrong. This discussion only makes sense if there is no comma and the masculine “Three” has gender disagreement with the neuter Spirit, water and blood.
7. Without the Johanine comma the text of 1 John 5:8 still reads “[These] three are one”, so Cyprian’s text seems actually not to have knowledge of the comma itself, because he says “Father, Son, Holy Spirit” and not “Father, Word, Spirit”. The usage of “Father, Son, Holy Spirit” points instead to an allegorical interpretation of “The Spirit, the water, and the blood”. See Augustine’s previously mentioned homily and Tertullian’s citation of John 10:30 as a pattern for how the patristics argued for the Trinity by deduction from the Biblical text. There deduction is not needed were an explicit verse like the Johanine comma in the Bible.
I hope this helps, these are just some of my thoughts as I read this article and consider some of these issues myself.
It is a great read. Thanks for this. God bless!
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
7 “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.”
john 14:6-7
an allusion is not a quote……if God was a tininty he would have clearly have mentioned it.
there are 28 passages in the 66 books that state God is one
19 in the jewish scriptures
9 in your new testament
we know the church throughout hstory has corrupted the text
ex. the ending of mark last 12 verses
please stop deceiving people and come to truth
p.s. why so many translations in english of the bible if its the word of god dont need but one this is how your brain gets manipulated
Take a closer look at the first three words of the Old testament. The verb meaning to create is singular, while the noun for God is plural. Thus more literally it would be something like “In the beginning, one Gods created…”. The Shema (Deut 6:4) is even more clear, as “God” is plural there too. More literally it would be something like: “Hear of Israel, the Lord your Gods, the Lord is one.”
Seems pretty Trinitarian…
This is a brilliant article, a ‘masterpiece’ as someone wrote above. Thank you very much. In the past two years I have had cause to debate with two local church leaders whether or not 1 John 5 v 7 was written by the Apostles. I’ve been surprised by the vehemence with which they have asserted that John never wrote these words. The most recent document I received from my opponent (a dear brother in Christ I might add) rejects all the ‘external’ evidence that John wrote these words, and therefore insists that I must look at the ‘internal’ evidence, viz. the grammar. He has used an intricate argument to suggest that the grammar of 1 John 5 vv 6-8 only makes sense if 1 John 5 v 7 is left out. I prayed that God would help me find the best counter arguments and here I am, the very next day, having found your article, which I had never come across before in all my research on 1 John 5 v 7. Your argument for 1 John 5 v 7 being written by John, and especially on the grammar point, is so fully and elegantly set out here. Extremely useful!
Thank you. ^_^
Absolutely thorough article, with a thorough and substantive understanding of the Greek. Our God arrives when asked for; He is faithful to preserve His Word, as it is said, “… My Words shall not pass away.”
Thank you for your perspective, at the very least. Agreement or not, your argument is well-constructed and helpful.
God bless.
Clement of Alexandria (150-215), even early than Cyprian (210-258), cites it too.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-fragments.html
Chap. v. 6. He says, “This is He who came by water and blood;” and again,- Ver. 8. “For there are three that bear witness, the spirit,” which is life, “and the water,” which is regeneration and faith, “and the blood,” which is knowledge; “and these three are one.” For in the Saviour are those saving virtues, and life itself exists in His own Son.
I appreciate your efforts to give an even handed examination of this issue, but there’s some key Latin evidence you’re overlooking.
First, the Old Latin copies of 1 John rendered the Greek of 1 John 5:8, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἐν εἰσὶν – “the Spirit and the water and the blood and these three agree” as “Spiritus et aqua et sanguis et tres unum sunt” – “the Spirit and the water and the blood and these three are one.”
Church fathers like Tertullian, Cyprian, and Augustine were writing in Latin and were using the Old Latin copies of 1 John. Therefore, quotes in their works citing “these three are one” cannot be considered unambiguous references to the Johannine comma of 1 John 5:7, when the exact same Latin phrase appears in the Old Latin versions of 1 John 5:8.
Second, you aren’t going to find any modern day scholar (of any theological persuasion) who believes that the prologue of Codex Fuldensis was actually written by Jerome. Even Erasmus questioned it and scholarship turned against its authenticity in 1700-1800’s. No copy of Jerome’s works or discussion of his theology published today will include this prologue. False attribution was not unusual for the time, for instance we also find late Latin and Syriac copies of Historia Monachorum in Aegypto falsely attributed to Jerome where earlier copies were anonymous.
However, I will agree that Codex Fuldensis does provide evidence that the Johannine Comma was in existence by the 6th century at least, which is earlier than many opponents of the comma acknowledge. Here is a good academic article laying out some of what I’ve mentioned above with footnotes detailing the rejection of Jerome’s authorship of the prologue: https://www.academia.edu/46952095/The_Comma_Johanneum_A_Relic_in_the_Tradition
Third, the text you have quoted from Origen, Selecta in Psalmos, is also not usually seen as an authentic work of Origen. Some passages from Selecta in Psalmos are identical to the writings of Evagrius Ponticus, and it is likely that it is a composite work drawn from many sources. While it is possible that some parts of Selecta go back to Origen, the text is certainly not a “pure” representation of his writings, and it would be unwise to place too much emphasis on it. This article contains at least a brief mention of Selecta in context of Origen’s interpretations of Psalm 67: https://www.academia.edu/36736512/ORIGENS_EXEGETICAL_APPROACH_TO_THE_PSALTER_IN_THE_LIGHT_OF_HIS_HOMILIES_ON_PSALM_67
Fourth, the text you cited as from Athanasius comes from Disputatio contra Arium which is likewise widely regarded as a later forgery. This opinion arises in part because the text describes debates at Nicaea about the deity of the Holy Spirit when Jerome, Basil, and Epiphanius all agree that this topic was not discussed at Nicaea. A commentator on this article gives relevant quotes: https://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2018/09/10/1-john-57-in-the-fourth-century-theodore-diodorus-the-suda-and-byzantine-punctuation/
Lastly, although it is an argument from silence, it is worth noting that the comma is not cited in any of the major theological disputes of the 4th and 5th centuries, where it would have been extremely useful.
Priscillian in the 4th century Liber Apologeticum appears to be the earliest unambiguous reference to the Comma. However, it is worth noting that Priscillian was a modalist (believing the the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were only different forms of God rather than distinct persons). The text of the comma is actually very well suited to modalist theology, and it is at least possible that it arose in a modalist group.
In summary, we have no unambiguous evidence of the Johannine Comma prior to Priscillian and his witness to the text is not necessarily an argument in favor of authenticity. Based on this, the modern tendency to reject the verse is merited.
“The Comma was directly quoted by Cyprian before 260.” — Others may have already addressed this point. But, subject to correction, Cyprian appears, in the English translation, to be quoting what is John 10:30 and 1 John 5:8c.
The Lord says, “I and the Father are one” # John 10:30
and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,
“And these three are one.” # 1 John 5:8c
Cyprian’s statement, “and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” appears to be a prepositional phrase, not a direct quote of some text.
Notice that 5:8 doesn’t say “these three are one”, it says that they agree as one, which is a different statement. Further, he specifies that “these three are one” is written of the Father, Son and Spirit, which doesn’t fit verse 8 at all. Verse 8 speaks of Spirit, water, and blood, not Father, Son, Spirit.
Brother, this is an absolutely invaluable write-down of this issue. Very comprehensive and cohesive argument for the inclusion of the comma. I am looking at it alongside a very comprehensive and cohesive argument for the exclusion, and trying to absorb all the arguments of both sides.
I’m in the process of writing a full examination of the deity of Christ and the trinity, and your reasoning will prove very useful.
Do you have a good resource where I might search further about the 484 council called by the Vandal King Huneric? Thanks!
It was council of Carthage that ended up being brief and unproductive. The bit I quoted was from a statement of faith by the Trinitarians. It was in Latin, and here’s the original Latin if it helps:
As to more info, it’s hard to find since the council was so biased and short. Honestly – and somewhat surprisingly – the Wikipedia article on the councils of Carthage has a decent synopsis. Obviously not authoritative, but reasonably correct right now.
Thank you for this great article. I’ve always believed it was legit. The issue did help me learn about textual criticism, which I knew nothing about before. Thank you again!
I will admit that I find the Old Testament easier to read (what, with all the kings and battles), and I don’t pay enough attention to the New Testament, but I find the “sleuthing”, here, very interesting.
I thought this was really well done. Thanks for the context, timeframe and considerations taken to share what you have found about the Johannine Comma. The understanding of God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Ghost is pivotal to our salvation.
This was helpful to see the multiple sides. For me the argument against its inclusion, from the viewpoint of a confessing Christian is fairly straight-forward: was it in the Greek? And we have no evidence that it was. All of the manuscripts that have it were either shown to be added/created after Erasmus’ editions, or don’t have it in the same form (missing the definite articles). I believe the original languages to be the final authority so whether it was preserved in the Latin is interesting, but irrelevant when zero of the 500 manuscripts in the Greek demonstrably have it before Erasmus. If it was completely lost to the Greek, then that calls preservation into question (clearly it then wasn’t preserved for the Greek church).
That said, I also find some of the earlier quotations inconclusive. Was Clement and Cyprian referring to verse 7, or verse 8? Unclear to me. And when Socrates corroborates Jerome’s contention about “unfaithful translators”, is he an independent source or is he repeating what Jerome said? Too often someone says something and it gets repeated uncritically.
Case in point: Gill says that Stephanus had access to many manuscripts containing 1 John 5:7. Where did he get this? From Beza. Turretin also repeats this claim. Where did Beza get it? From Stephanus’ critical notations which neglected to mark this passage as not being contained in the manuscripts he viewed in Paris (and they provably didn’t contain it). So we have a repeat of an assumption made because of an omission in text critical marks (not even a positive statement). The internal evidence I find interesting. The external (outside of Latin) is essentially non-existent, and that’s concerning.
Amazing scholarship. It’s also amazing how blind the modern Bible translators are.
I think they almost want to be different from the KJV primarily just to be different. So as to see themselves as better.
Excellently written, thank you brother. I think it should also be noted that many (probably most) of our ‘ancient’ biblical manuscripts, whether they be Latin or Greek, are dated through Paleography, which is a mixture of art and science (and possibly bias too). Paleography was essentially invented by the Benedictine Monk Bernard de Montfaucon around 1708 (the fact that the methods for dating manuscripts was invented by a Catholic Monk should be at least somewhat concerning). Paleography has been used to date biblical manuscripts beyond the years they have been known to actually exist; however, unless we have documented proof/history of an MSS in existence, it is difficult to know when the document was truly written. For example, new writing can be done on old parchment, and the new writing can imitate ancient handwriting. Codex B (Vaticanus) was first mentioned in 1475 by the Vatican; however, there is no documented or actual history prior to that, only conjecture and possibilities through paleography (in fact one of the British Historians who examined Codex Vaticanus said that Codex Vaticanus, which is supposedly a 4th century document, actually looks like a 15th century document). Codex A (Sinaiticus) was discovered in 1844 and 1859 by Tischendorf, with much controversy and discrepancy surrounding the details and authenticity of the document (which were never settled). As with Codex B, there is no documented or actual history of Codex A other than conjecture and possibilities through paleography (unless you believe Constantine Simonedes and then there is an actual history of the document). It is not very scientific to say that something must be old because it “looks old” or that it is old because it is “evident to the senses”. Scholars can be wrong just as easily as laymen. Scholars can also be biased just as easily as laymen too. Just a little food for thought about the supposed age of manuscripts.
As an Arian Christian, I will say these are very interesting and strong points.
If it is true that the Arian brothers in the 4th century removed this verse, then of course, I am not in support of their action in this regard, for no inspired scripture should be altered in such a way.
Of course, even with the authenticity of the comma, I find it does not counter or refute Arian Christology at all, and I’m sure many early Arians felt this way. For Jesus said “he and the Father are one”, which the Arians, and I myself as a modern Arian, accept.
But this phrase in our point of view, is contextualised by Jesus’ phrase to his Apostles “they may be one as we are one”. Meaning, one family, one unity, as opposed to one substance.
I also must feel I have to comment, that Tertullian was an Arian or Semi-Arian. Even though he used the phrase “trinity”, for in his day, the phrase simply meant “three things in one group”, but he doesn’t explicitly state the “Trinity” he speaks of is of singular coeternal being, though he had a “begetting theology”.
For Tertullian states:
“He (God) has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son”. – Tertullian, Against Hermogenes
Hence, Tertullian’s trinity was not “Trinitarianism” as it was later defined. So I do not feel that the phrase “trinity” being used by him, can’t be asserted as evidence that the Trinitarians had “no motive” to add the comma, since the definition of the phrase was later subject to change.
Nevertheless, I think the rest of your argumentation for the authenticity of this verse is solid.
You might consider looking at this article: it was written by someone who had recently left a Arian-adjacent camp about Christ. You might not have time for the whole thing, and that’s fine, but I would suggest you read the (rather short) section on the Old Testament. The plurality of God is very clear in more than one place, even in the OT.
I am deeply pleased with this articles deep rooted scholarship that so accurately mirrors the defining accuracy of truth!
I looked at your article on the “plurals” @Berean Patriot that you recommended to me, and I am already knowledgeable of these things.
I do not agree that there is a plurality of persons in the OT in God. There is possibly a “plurality of majesty”, in the way the British Royal family says “let us” when a single person speaks.
Alternatively, it refers to the Jewish concept of the Sheliah and the Memra of the Targum, which includes the “two powers of Heaven”.
Since the 1st century and prior, Judaism understood there to be “two YHWHs”, one who was God, and one who was his representative agent who took on his name and identity. And this has been applied to humans in the OT as well, where the King of Israel in several verses in both Greek and Hebrew, is called “god and christ”.
I quote these sources as examples:
“In the Targum the Memra (Word/Logos) figures constantly as the manifestation of the divinepower, or as God’s messenger in place of God Himself, wherever the predicate is not in conformity with the dignity or the spirituality of the Deity…
It is difficult to say how far the rabbinical concept of the Memra, which is used now as a parallel to the divine Wisdom and again as a parallel to the Shekinah, had come under the influence of the Greek term “Logos,” which denotes both word and reason, and, perhaps owing to Egyptian mythological notions, assumed in the philosophical system of Heraclitos, of Plato, and of the Stoa the metaphysical meaning of world-constructive and world-permeating intelligence…
The Memra as a cosmic power furnished Philo the corner-stone upon which he built his peculiar semi-Jewish philosophy. Philo’s “divine thought,” “the image” and “first-born son” of God, “the archpriest,” “intercessor,” and “paraclete” of humanity, the “arch type of man”, paved the way for the Christian conceptions of the Incarnation (“the Word become flesh”) and the Trinity.
The Word which “the unoriginated Father created in His own likeness as a manifestation of His own power” appears in the Gnostic system of Marcus (Irenæus, “Adversus Hæreses,” i. 14)”. – Memra, Jewish Encyclopedia
“…the “original model” for the two powers idea was the role of the vice-regent of the divine council. The paradigm of a high sovereign God (El) who rules heaven and earth through the agency of a second, appointed god (Baal) became part of Israelite religion… For the orthodox Israelite, Yahweh was both sovereign and vice regent… The ancient Israelite knew two Yahwehs—one invisible, a spirit, the other visible, often in human form… During the Second Temple period, Jewish theologians and writers speculated on an identity for the second Yahweh. Guesses ranged from divinized humans from the stories of the Hebrew Bible to exalted angels. These speculations were not considered unorthodox. That acceptance changed when certain Jews, the early Christians, connected Jesus with this orthodox Jewish idea“. – Michael Heiser, Two Powers in Heaven
“In Jewish law, a shaliaḥ (Hebrew: שָלִיחַ, [ʃaˈliaχ]; pl. שְלִיחִים, sheliḥim [ʃliˈχim] or sheliah, literally “emissary” or “messenger”) is a legal agent. In practice, “the shaliaḥ for a person is as this person himself.”Accordingly, a shaliaḥ performs an act of legal significance for the benefit of the sender, as opposed to him or herself”. – Wikipedia on Shaliah
“The Law of Agency deals with the status of a person (known as the agent) acting by direction of another (the principal), and thereby legally binding the principal in his connection with a third person. The person who binds a principal in this manner is his agent, known in Jewish law as sheluaḥ or sheliaḥ (one that is sent): the relation of the former to the latter is known as agency (sheliḥut). The general principle is enunciated thus: A man’s agent is like himself“. – Jewish Encyclopedia
“…every Hebrew knows that the term Elohim is a homonym, and denotes God, angels, judges, and the rulers of countries“. – Maimonides and Jewish Philosophy, pt. 1, chapter II
“Hebrew Bible scholar John Collins points out that the Israelite notion that the human king could be considered in some sense divine …. we find highly exalted terms used of the king of Israel, terms that may surprise readers who – based on the kind of thinking that developed in the fourth Christian century — think that there is an unbridgeable chasm between God and humans. Nonetheless, here it is, in the Bible itself, the king is called both Lord and God. For example, Psalm 110: “The LORD says to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.””. – Bart Ehrman, How Jesus Became God
Later Christians, and especially modern Christians, are ignorant to Jewish theology, culture, writing style, and language. But reading the NT through the lens of Sheliah and Memra tradition, makes for a far more consistent and logical Gospel.
I was hoping you’d notice the verses highlighted in red, since a few use plural verbs with plural nouns. Kind of a slam dunk for plurality, which would absolutely contradict the Shema (Deut 4:6) unless you have an understanding like the Trinity. (It’s also why I reject your “two YHWHs” theory; I’ve read too much on early Jewish beliefs to accept that they believed that.)
Regardless, you seem to believe with the Arians that there was a time when the Word/Son/Jesus didn’t exist. Assuming that’s the case based on your Tertullian quote, How do you explain John 1:3? (or Col 1:16) If the Word/Son participated in the creation of everything (as the text clearly states) then that must include His own creation. However, it’s impossible for something to take part in its own creation, for then it would first need to exist to take part in it’s own creation.
How would you explain this?
I noticed that your source link for the quote about the Arians controlling the translations for about 50 years is missing. I was able to find an archived version of that source in the web archive: http://web.archive.org/web/20171108045807/http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/1john5n7.html
Feel free to add your source link back in using that link.
Quote: “The trinity was already an accepted doctrine by at least Tertullian’s time. (200, give or take 20 years)”
This statement isn’t entirely accurate. Although the prominent early fathers from Polycarp to Origen obviously have numerous quotes including the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit being extremely prolific in an age of extremely low literacy rates, many of their comments regarding the relationship of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit are subordinationistic.
Even during the Arian controversy and the consensus of the Nicene Creed, many of the concurring bishops were also subordinationists, but either succumbed or saw little clarity on which to argue against.
Concise article here:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/trinity-history.html#DevCre
Quotes of pre-nicene fathers quotes:
https://restitutio.org/2019/04/12/the-trinity-before-nicea/
It appears the JW folks use this in some of the arguments against the trinity. Nevertheless, 5:7-8 confirms the trinity with out the comma, in my opinion.
Thank you for your site.
The original post is thought-provoking, but also an example of selective presentation of the evidence. The main compelling points are negated by intelligent comments that offer missing facts. Have you considered a re-write?
Typo
had bee “corrupted”
I’m enjoying your articles! No reason to approve the comment, just silently fix the error to mess with peoples minds. What typo? There wasn’t a typo.
Darrel
Comment? What comment? 😉
Thanks. 🙂
Excellent article on the Comma. There is also some Old Italic evidence for the Comma pre-Jerome and even before Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEThNXJv_B4
The are three witness here in earth, I don’t understand that part. How the Spirit,water,blood agree as one?
This is a very well researched and cited article. I have always had a conviction as to the inclusion of the “comma” , but this information really supports that conviction. Just as a help; there possibly may be a typo mistake. You wrote, “You can have both masculine and feminine answered by neuter, but not just neuter.”
Did you mean to end that with, “but not just masculine”? I tend to think that was your intent. If not, forgive me. I’m just wanting to help out is all. Thanks again for the outstanding scholarship and detail.
Yup that’s a typo, now fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. 🙂
Latin Church Father, Ambrose, Bishop of Milan in his work “On the Holy Spirit” (~ 381 A.D) Chapter 13, Verse 159 quotes 1 John 5:7:
But as we show that the Son is called the Paraclete, so, too, do we show that the Spirit is called the Truth. Christ is the Truth, the Spirit is the Truth, for you find in John’s epistle: “For the Spirit is Truth.” 1 John 5:7.
Source: Translated by H. de Romestin, E. de Romestin and H.T.F. Duckworth. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 10. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1896.)
Link: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/34021.htm
The fact he did not have it, especially at that time, proves to me that it does not belong in the bible. You could say that he bypassed the Verse (how, when he explicitly quotes 1 John 5:7? Does not make any sense) or he had a corrupt bible, but that is just speculation without evidence.
So a couple things. The phrase ” the Spirit is the truth” occurs in 1 John 5:6, not 5:7. Second, verses were first added to the Bible in the 16th century, so it’s impossible that Ambrose cited the verse by using chapter and verse references. I think the link you provided added the chapter and verse reference so its readers knew which verse Ambrose was citing. (And they cited the wrong verse unfortunately.).
According to the American Standard Version and the Revised Standard Version (Revision of the ASV) “The Spirit is the truth” is verse 7.
Even if, the fact that Ambrose quotes 1 John 5:7-8 three times throughout his works, and never even hints at the comma, is astounding. There would not be a reason not to quote the CJ at least once.
Ah, different versification in a different version. Okay.
Now, there are very good reasons not to quote a powerful verse in your defense, or even an explanation of a doctrinal position. For example, John 1:1 is rightly and widely regarded as one of the most powerful verses in support of the Deity of Christ. However, I essentially never use it when arguing for Jesus’s Deity because there are a thousand “stock answers” that anyone can parrot. Thus, I use other verses which are less commonly used (but no less powerful) to support Jesus’s deity. Most people don’t see them coming and thus don’t have a “stock answer”, which I personally find makes better headway.
I often do the same thing when teaching, that is, using less commonly cited verses. I know other teachers who do this as well. Remember that arguments from silence are tenuous at best. It’s 100% fine if they convince you, but I am more persuaded by the Comma being quoted by Cyprian, who was nearly 200 years closer to the source than Ambrose. (Also, simply reading some the letter you linked to was enough to convince me that Ambrose wasn’t exactly a theological heavyweight. He makes a lot of baseless claims without evidence and states things as fact which are in reality terrible eisegesis, even if he was right.)
You can get stock answers to anything, that is not a good argument.
If you just gonna undermine the value of Ambrose, fine, i do not.
Augustine interpreted Blood Water Spirit as Father Word Holy Spirit, so did Cyprian.
If just Cyprian allegedly quoting the (not exact, like KJV) verse and nobody else from many many (trinitarian) church fathers, is not worrying much, than i do not know what.
But you are entitled to your opinion and i have mine.
NOTE: By “know*” I mean ~99% sure
I have no answer to your internal grammar argument, it is rather convincing to an incredible degree. But I do have a small comment, John is known for his grammatical lapses do to direct quotation in his apocalypse.
Your argument for being skipped by a scribe due to similar text is convincing. And about this I have nothing to say
However your question “who would add a trinitarian verse to a bible that already supports the trinity”. We know* that the Comma is first seen (or reseen) in a Commentary during the ~10th Century and it makes its next appearances in the manuscripts you list. We know* that scribes during this time were more likely to add what could be commentary than exclude what could be scripture. So it was simply added by a scribe copying a text with commentary and was transmitted to several other manuscripts… So that question does not hold any water for me at least. You have many solid arguments, this is not one of them. Fifteen hundreds manuscripts after all, had been added to by 1-2% against the autographs not omitted by 1-2%.
Also all the allusions (Except Cyprian, that one is convincing as well) could all be quoting similar statements of faith to the Council of Niecea or you know… the very doctrine of the trinity they are trying to defend… “Three in One”, “Father”, “Spirit”, “Son” type language could come in quite handy while trying to defend the trinity. Besides if you had the verse why not just quote it and drop the mike.
The grammatical question really is a good one, but what gets me is why only allusions instead of direct quotations. -Thanks for reading
In the section “Rebuttal from the Johannine Comma Supporters” you write:
For a further history lesson, I’m going to quote an excellent article on this same topic…
[Lengthy quote]
Source
But you don’t mention the source… Elsewhere you use parentheses or hyperlinks to do so. I think you missed it here.
I think the website no long exists, and search engines are VERY upset by dead links so I think I removed it for that reason. Here’s the original link: http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/1john5n7.html
Thanks for providing the link–that’s helpful; at least one can find the page on the “Wayback Machine”. You might consider including it following the quote as ‘plain text’ (i.e., no hyperlink). Also, given that the link is ‘dead’, and that there is no attribution on the page (author, date, etc.), you might want to find another source to support your claim that, “For about fifty years, the Arians had almost complete control of the creation of new copies of the New Testament.”
By saying that the Arians may have removed the Comma Johanneum, youre saying indirectly that an important creed was removed from Scripture. I wouldn’t call that “adulteration” but then we can think about what else the Arians might have changed.
Bruce M. Metzger (NT scholar, and leading expert on textual criticism) has confirmed that it is not part of the NT. If it is that simple with the history of Arians and that bishops in the early century quoted the Comma Johanneum, then many biblical scholars would have to acknowledge this passage, but apparently it is not that simple. Especially I also ask myself the question: why did the Comma Johanneum only appear in a Latin translation in the late 4th century?
Dear Berean Patriot,
God led me to your work right when I needed it. And directly used it to completely blast lies I did not have the evidence to push out of my face. I was alone with my back up against a wall fighting a 1John 4:1-6/2John 7-10 stronghold of spirits and no other Christian to help me and then I found this. Thank you. I pray I will meet you one day in heaven soI can hug your neck for this. May our God bless you and keep you unto that day.
I was raised “Jesus Only” believing that only the Father is God and that HIS name is actually Jesus and that what Trinitarians know as the preexistent Son, was nothing more than a temporal skin suit the Father used to interact with humanity for a time. Along with this I had been taught that a portion of 1John 5:7-8 had been added and was not actually Scripture. I am so thankful God set me free. After I had begun to fully believe in the Trinity God led me to your write up here on the Johannine Comma.
A circumstantial case for the Comma of John: In 484 A.D. the bishop of Carthage with 400 bishops quoted the comma to an Arian Vandal king. Being the bishop of Carthage, he would have had access to the Scriptures of Cyprian, and he probably had a Vulgate, maybe a first edition. Also, Gregory Nazianzus wrote on the grammar, and he had a student named Jerome. Seems strong evidence to me. Blessings.
Gm 🌅 n a little, ok a LOT LONG But excellent n I agree 10,000%. I’m saddened that of All good translation Bibles, most omit the 2nd part of v7. Doesn’t the 1689 London Baptist Confession and catechism include v7 in totality? Anyway, God’s Grace2u n thanx for your thorough stance. Soli Deo Gloria ✝️
Wow! STRAIGHT UP LIES FROM THE PIT OF HELLLLLLLLLLL!
Are you kidding me? Angel of light begone……”Wherefore hear the word of the Lord, ye scornful men…because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell we are at agreement…for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:” Is.28:14-16 KJV
Any version but the truth! I pray for us all to “…be broken, and snared, and taken.” Is.28:13b KJV
As an Ordained Minister of First Baptist Church of Dallas under Dr. WA Criswell, I have fought gently against translations omitting 1JOHN 5.7-8. Thank you for your gracious eye opening evidence.
Hello there. I couldn’t find the source for Origen’s quote: “Behold, the eyes of bondservants in the hands of their lord, as the eyes of a bondwoman in the hands of their lady….” Where did Origen write this?
Thanks.
What I find interesting is that the disputed text in first John uses the two words “water and blood“ and those two words together are not found anywhere else in the New Testament except in the gospel of John where he talks about “blood and water“ coming out of Jesus on the cross when He was pierced with a spear; so think about it… Water and blood are used by John in his gospel, so to me the fact that water and blood are mentioned in first John are almost a kind of stylistic signature of John’s writing
It’s worth noting that none of the church fathers quoted the Johannine Comma verbatim. As your article demonstrates, they all referenced or alluded to only a portion of it, particularly “these three are one”. Why didn’t they quote it word for word if it was there? Wouldn’t a direct quotation lend stronger support to their argument? Thank you very much. I am a Trinitarian, but I strongly doubt the authenticity of the Johannine Comma.
How is “and these three are one” not a direct quote? That’s exactly what 1 John 5:7 says and that exact phrasing occurs nowhere else in the text of scripture.
The following is quoted from your article:
Cyprian clearly quotes the Comma. He lived from 200 – 258, and so also predated Aruis and the Arian controversies. This is a crystal clear allusion to the Comma.
“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.”
(Treatise I:6)
Your argument here is misleading. Initially, I was swayed by your statement, as I believed Cyprian had unequivocally quoted the Johannine Comma. However, upon revisiting it after completing the entire article, I discovered it wasn’t a direct quotation of the Johannine Comma. This led me to question why Cyprian didn’t quote it verbatim if the Johannine Comma was indeed original and authentic.
How is it misleading? And how is “and these three are one” not a direct quote? (see my reply to your previous comment)
Priscillian of Avila quotes the Comma in 380 AD. Curiously, the order is reversed, but all the content is there.
“As John says, There are three that give testimony in earth: the water, the flesh and the blood; and these three are one and there are three that give testimony in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Spirit; and these three are one in Christ Jesus.
————————————–
There are three notable issues with this quotation:
Firstly, the Scripture doesn’t mention “water, flesh, and blood” as testifiers, but rather “water, blood, and the Spirit.”
Secondly, why did Priscillian choose not to directly quote 1 John 5:7-8? Why alter the original text by replacing “water, blood, and the Spirit” with “water, flesh, and blood”? He may have believed that quoting the original text exactly would seem odd when introducing the three heavenly witnesses, particularly because it’s unusual to conceive of “the Spirit” simultaneously bearing witness in both heaven and on earth, while the Father and Son only bear witness in heaven.
Thirdly, he asserts, “there are three that give testimony in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Spirit; and these three are one in Christ Jesus.” Nowhere in the Bible is there a verse stating that the Father, the Word, and the Spirit are “one in Christ Jesus.” This assertion is akin to saying “The Father, Christ Jesus, and the Spirit” are one in Christ Jesus, which is difficult to comprehend.
You replied: “How is it misleading? And how is “and these three are one” not a direct quote? ”
——————-
What I said in my previous post is: Why did they opt to quote only a segment of the verse rather than the entire verse if it was indeed original in 1 John? Wouldn’t quoting the complete verse offer stronger support for their arguments?
That isn’t quite what you said. I understand if that’s what you meant, but what you wrote gave a different impression. Regardless, you seem to think that a direct quotation of the entire Comma is necessary to establish its legitimacy. Why is that?
To the length of the quote, Cyprian wasn’t arguing for the Trinity here; he was arguing a completely unrelated topic and the reference to the Comma is somewhat incidental to his point, not central. That perfectly explain the shortness of the quotes, especially when read in context. (you can read the full text here).
And in his exegesis of 1 John 5:8, Augustine also said:
Three things then we know to have issued from the Body of the Lord when He hung upon the tree: first, the spirit: of which it is written, ‘And He bowed the head and gave up the spirit:’ then, as His side was pierced by the spear, ‘blood and water.’ Which three things if we look at as they are in themselves, they are in substance several and distinct, and therefore they are not one. But if we will inquire into the things signified I by these, there not unreasonably comes into our thoughts the Trinity itself, which is the One, Only, True, Supreme God, Father and Son and Holy Ghost, of whom it could most truly be said, ‘There are Three Witnesses, and the Three are One:
————————————–
As for the Scripture, he uses the phrase “of which it is written”. When it comes to his interpretation or inference, he uses the phrase “of whom it could most truly be said”. This clear distinction in phrases obviously implies this.
Okay, you could consider this “soft evidence”.
Further, we know at least one early church father noticed this grammatical issue. Gregory of Nazanzius said the following in his Fifth theological oration:
What about John then, when in his Catholic Epistle he says that there are Three that bear witness, the Spirit and the Water and the Blood? Do you think he is talking nonsense?
First, because he has ventured to reckon under one numeral things which are not consubstantial, though you say this ought to be done only in the case of things which are consubstantial. For who would assert that these are consubstantial?
Secondly, because he had not been consistent in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourself disclaim in the case of Deity?
——————————————-
The citation of this early church father, Gregory, does not affirm the authenticity of the Johannine Comma; rather, it challenges it. Gregory poses a question, which can be rephrased as follows: Is John speaking illogically because he dared to group non-consubstantial entities under a single numeral, i.e., one, and because his grammatical choices lack consistency? Gregory’s response is a resounding “no”. He acknowledges the grammatical inconsistency but asserts that it does not undermine the verse’s validity. Therefore, if the Johannine Comma were indeed original and authentic, there would be no such inconsistency in John’s grammar. Consequently, Gregory would not have needed to address it as a problem.
You wrote, “There is no place in all of scripture (that I can’t think) with the phrase “and these three are one” except the Comma. ”
﹉﹉﹉﹉﹉﹉﹉﹉﹉﹉﹉﹉
This is not true. In the Latin Bible, the Vulgate, the phrase “and these three are one” (instead of “and these three agree in one”) follows the phrase “the Spirit, water, and blood”. I even speculate that this translation prompts some Latin church fathers to superimpose a Trinitarian interpretation.
That is something of a red herring and irrelevant, since he specifically says it is written of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The only place that’s written is in the Comma, making the reference to the disputed portion crystal clear.
In the Tome of Leo, written to Archbishop Flavian of Constantinople, read at the Council of Chalcedon on 10 October 451 AD,[53] and published in Greek, Leo the Great’s usage of 1 John 5 has him moving in discourse from verse 6 to verse 8:
This is the victory which overcometh the world, even our faith”; and: “Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood; and it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear witness, the spirit, the water, and the blood; and the three are one.” That is, the Spirit of sanctification, and the blood of redemption, and the water of baptism; which three things are one, and remain undivided ..
﹉﹉﹉﹉﹉﹉
I think Leo’s quotation clearly demonstrates that he didn’t know Johannine Comma. Let’s look at the Greek text of 1 John 5:8:
Greek text：καὶ τρεῖς (three) εἰσὶν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες (witnesses) ἐν τῇ γῇ (in earth), τὸ Πνεῦμα (the Spirit), καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ (water), καὶ τὸ αἷμα （blood)· καὶ οἱ τρεῖς(three) εἰς τὸ ἕν（one） εἰσιν.
As you can see, in both Greek text above and the following Latin text, the phrase “in earth” is in the middle of a sentence. If Leo deliberately skipped verse 7, then there was no reason for him to quote verse 8 to delete “in earth”. The only plausible explanation is that there is no “in earth” in verse 8. If verse 8 does not have “in earth,” then Leo’s text does not agree with the Textus Receptus, but agrees with the Critical Text.
Latin text: Et tres (three) sunt, qui testimonium (testimony) dant in terra (in earth): spiritus (the Spirit), et aqua (water), et sanguis (blood): et hi tres (three) unum (one) sunt.
I will happily grant that he doesn’t seem to accept the Comma. However, this is roughly twice as far from the original as Cyprian. In textual issues like this, being close in time to the source bears weight, and doubly so when it’s twice as close. So it’s evidence, but not nearly as strong as earlier quotes in my mind.
Thank you for your replies. I have a question concerning the quote you mentioned from 1 John 5:7-8 of the KJV. Please see verse 8. According to an online Bible I consulted, it states “the spirit” instead of “the Spirit”.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
Can you provide the source for the Arian quote and grammatical error? It seems the source is gone.
One piece of evidence on the pro side that I haven’t seen the pro-Comma side discuss (although I’m sure it’s been noticed before) is that vs. 8, which in translations usually says “and the three agree” or “the three agree as one,” doesn’t mention “agree” at all but literally says, “and the three are in the one” (καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν). But which “one”? The definite article points to a prior referent, but without the Comma, no referent is there. With the Comma, it’s obvious: the one is that spoken of just before: “and these three are one.” It’s the singular Deity of the Trinity.
There’s another part where omitting the Comma breaks the semantic coherence of the passage, which is how many “witnesses” there are. Without the Comma, first “it is the Spirit who bears witness,” then there are three witnesses of which one is the Spirit and the other two are not persons and thus only metaphorical witnesses, which therefore can’t be invoked in satisfaction of the law requiring 2-3 witnesses. Then suddenly in v. 9, there’s another witness, “God,” which can only mean the Father and not the Spirit because it says, “the witness of God which he has testified of His Son.” Why bring in the Father as a witness in v. 9 and not earlier, when three witnesses–the Spirit, the water, and the blood–were established? An additional personal witness would have fulfilled the requirement for 2-3 witnesses, so why not mention Him at the beginning?
This reference to the Father’s testimony only makes sense if He has already been mentioned as a witness. Notice v. 9 refers to “the witness of God” without first saying that God (the Father) is a witness–with the Comma included, the fact that the Father is a witness has already been established in v. 7.
The three “witnesses” referred to in v. 8 seem to be a clear reference to the crucifixion account in John 19. With the Comma included, the three witnesses in heaven include “the Holy Spirit,” while the three on earth include just “the spirit” sans “holy.” It seems a distinction is being made. The “spirit” in v. 8 seems to point to John 19:30: “He said, ‘It is finished!’ And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.” Thus the three “witnesses” would be three extraordinary things that John himself witnessed at Christ’s crucifixion: His control over the time of His own death and the blood and water that came out of His side (Jn 19:34). The next verse says, “And he who has seen has testified (μεμαρτύρηκεν), and his testimony (μαρτυρία) is true” (Jn 19:35). The witness of the three earthly “witnesses” (metaphorically so called) is John himself. That is why he contrasts “the witness of God” to “the witness of men,” namely his own. Because “the spirit, the water, and the blood” are John’s own testimony, as per John 19:35, the “witness of God” must be something other than the three “witnesses” of v. 8, which could only be the Comma.
1 John 5:10 says “He who believes in the Son of God has the witness (as in testimony) in himself.” What does this mean? I believe it hearkens back to 1 John 2. John speaks of “antichrists” who “deny that Jesus is the Christ” and exhorts his readers not to listen to these antichrists because “you have a chrism from the Holy One, and you KNOW ALL THINGS. I have not written to you because you do not know the TRUTH, but because YOU KNOW IT, and that no lie is of the truth” (1 Jn 2:20-21) and “the chrism which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same chrism teaches you concerning all things, and is TRUE, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him” (2:27).
Now we can return to 5:10, which says “He who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself.” What is this testimony? It is mentioned in 2:24: “Therefore let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning.” Those who have the chrism know this testimony and that it is true. Because “the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is TRUTH” (5:6), this chrism confers the gift of the Holy Spirit. John seems to be assuring his readers that they can trust their chrismation and trust the true witness of the Holy Spirit within themselves, even though some “antichrists,” who were originally part of their church in Asia, had apostatized and were teaching docetism. (They were called “antichrists” it would seem because they had forfeited the promise of eternal life and taken a substitute chrism (anti-christoi).)
Thus John was assuring his audience that, through the chrism, they already had the true testimony within themselves, and they may trust this “witness of God” as an immediate truth more powerful than his own personal testimony or that of other eyewitnesses (“the witness of men”). This is how they may know that “witness of God,” that is the “three witnessing in heaven,” not via the report of other men, but directly through the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit gifted via the chrism. Thus the context seems to have been doubts that had arisen in the Asian church about the efficacy of the chrism due to apostates who were teaching heresy and denying the divinity of Jesus under the influence of spirits that were “not of God.”