1 John 5:7

From Textus Receptus

Current revision

See also Johannine Comma, Index of Johannine Comma articles, & 1 John 5:8.

• ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ Α΄ 5:7 Ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι·

(Textus Receptus, Novum Testamentum, Theodore Beza, 5th major edition. Geneva. 1598)

• 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

(King James Version, Pure Cambridge Edition 1900)

• 1 John 5:7 Because, there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.

(King James Version 2016 Edition, 2016) - buy the revised and updated printed 2023 Edition New Testament here

Interlinear

Commentary

1 John 5:7 is the seventh verse of the fifth chapter of the first Epistle of John in the New Testament.

The omission of the Johannine Comma

See also Johannine Comma, Index of Johannine Comma articles, & 1 John 5:8.

1 John 5:7 is the main part of what is titled the Comma Johanneum “John’s phrase” (also called Johannine Comma or the Heavenly Witnesses) which is the technical name for a comma (a short clause). The other part of the Comma is in 1 John 5:8. The Johannine Comma only appears in bibles based upon the Textus Receptus and most modern bibles omit it due to it not being in the Critical Text, or the Majority Text.

The text of the Comma appears below in bold:

5:7 “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one” (KJV).

Although technically the Comma refers to text that overlaps verses 7 and 8, it is common to refer to the text as verse seven, or 1 John 5:7. Besides TR / KJV update versions such as the King James Version 2016 Edition, Revised Webster Update 1995, or the New King James Version of 1982 etc, no other modern English Bibles includes this passage. Those who support the King James Version or Textus Receptus only position frequently cite this omission as conclusive proof that modern Bibles are removing verses which teach the Trinity from the Bible and should be rejected on the grounds of Revelation 22:18-19. This Comma is omitted from most modern translations of the Bible because most Greek manuscripts do not have them. But while the Comma in the KJV is based on a few late Greek manuscripts, it is based upon hundreds (perhaps thousands) of copies of the Latin Vulgate, and several early church quotations. 95% of Latin manuscripts of 1 John have the Comma. There are also internal inconsistencies of Greek grammar that occur when the verse is omitted.

The Comma Johanneum is one of the finest scriptures to use to support the doctrine of the Trinity. It is one of those few passages included in the Textus Receptus which has a weak attestation from Greek manuscripts. It must be remembered that we do not have all the manuscripts that ever have been in existence, and there have been concerted efforts to destroy manuscripts and bibles from many groups including Catholics and Muslims. Constantine's successor was a zealous Arian.

Because the Textus Receptus was basically unrivaled until the late 1900's, the Comma is found in the most widely used translations of the New Testament before 1881, when the Westcott and Hort Greek text along with the English Revised Version was published without the Comma; but, from the early 18th century onwards, several individual translators omitted it. Versions from this period which contain it include the Geneva Bible, the King James Version (KJV), Young's and both the Rheims New Testament and the Ronald Knox translations which are Roman Catholic.

Newer critical editions of the Greek text omit the Comma as not part of the original, and modern Bible translations based on them such as the New International Version (NIV), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), the English Standard Version (ESV), the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) either omit the Comma entirely, or place it in a footnote. In the Roman Catholic tradition, the Latin Nova Vulgata (New Vulgate), published in 1979 following the Second Vatican Council, primarily based upon the same Critical Text and approved for liturgical use, omits the Comma. Nor does the Catholic approved New American Bible include it.

The Comma Johanneum has been a major subject of debate from the 1500s to today. The debate on 1 John 5:7 has also been a primary focus of discussions on the integrity of the New Testament documents and scribal fealty to the Bible text. The varying doctrinal and Christological interpetations of the verse have been a major part of these debates. The Comma and the question of its authenticity have particular bearing on the development of the theological doctrine of the Trinity, which is central to most mainstream Christian denominations.

It stood basically unchallenged in English Bibles for four hundred years. It is the English ecclesiastical line for the past 500 years with first English Bible of John Wycliffe in 1380, William Tyndale’s New Testament of 1525, Coverdale’s Bible of 1535, in Matthew’s Bible of 1537, the Taverner’s Bible of 1539, the Great Bible of 1539, the Geneva New Testament of 1557, the Bishop’s Bible of 1568, and the King James Version of 1611. Trinitarianism is an orthodox position, and those who attack trinitarianism have rejected this verse. The fact that the very best of English translators, as well as many preachers, theologians, church leaders, editors, and the highest levels of scholarship have accepted the verse as well as many learned men who today still accept the Trinitarian statement in 1 John 5:7 needs to be acknowledged. Five centuries of English Christians acceptation of a verse that does not cause one to err or be deceived but rather enhances the doctrine of the trinity, should not quickly be rejected, let alone the many other language groups that have the verse, the huge amount of Old Latin and Vulgate manuscripts containing it, and its mention by early church witnesses. In the seventeenth century the framers of the Westminster Confession of Faith accepted the inclusion of 1 John 5.7–8 and used it to defend the doctrine of the Trinity.

Those who believe the Johannine Comma is authentic attribute authorship to the apostle John. They have diverse theories as to why the Comma dropped out of the Greek manuscript line and why most of the evidence is in Latin manuscripts and church writings. Often these proposed textual histories include homeoteleuton as the initial cause of the early variant. In 1699 Louis Ellies Dupin discussed the possibility:

"…that those two verses beginning with the same words, it was easy for the copiers to omit one by negligence, nothing being more usual than when the same word is in two periods that follow one another, for the copier to pass from the word of the first period to that which follows in the second."A compleat history of the canon and writers of the books of the Old and New Testament: Luis Ellis Du Pin p.79

Greek Manuscript Evidence

1 John 5:7 is found in: Greek manuscript 61, codex Ravianus and Britannicus, it's also in the margins of 88 and 629, manuscript E (735 AD; has Acts 8:37).

Comma Johanneum appears in the 14th century manuscript Codex Ottobonianus (Minuscule 629) from Horne's facsimile edition which is housed at the Vatican Library

Only 10 "late" Greek manuscripts contain the Comma, with 6 of them having it in the margin by an even later hand:

Minuscule 629 (14th century)

Minuscule 61 Codex Montfortianus (14th century)

Minuscule 918 (16th century)

Minuscule 2473 (17th century)

Minuscule 2318 (18th century)

Minuscule 221 margin (10th century, Comma added later)

Minuscule 88 margin (12th century, Comma added in 16th century)

Minuscule 429 margin (14th century, Comma added later)

Minuscule 636 margin (15th century, Comma added later) - Sometimes erroneously catalogued as 635

Minuscule 177 margin (11th century, Comma added later)

Latin Manuscripts

The appearance of the Comma in the Latin manuscript evidence is represented in the following table:

The Comma Johanneum in Latin in Codex Sangallensis 63 with the Comma at the bottom of the page

Over 90% Vulgate mss have the Comma. The earliest Vulgate manuscript is about 545 AD, Codex Fuldensis (first published in the 1800s). 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).}

It is also found in the old Latin manuscripts Codex Freisingensis (Latin "r", "Beuron 64"; AD *500*), leon 1 (various readings of 1 John 5:7-8; AD 913-923), leon 2 (margin, 930 AD; has Acts 8:37) harl 2 (AD 752), Codex Toletanus (988 AD; has Acts 8:37, 9:5, 9:6), Codex Demidovianus (1150 AD; has Acts 8:37), Codex Colbertinus (AD 1150), Codex Perpinianus (AD 1250; has Acts 8:37), and Speculum (Latin "m" AD *450*, within a century of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus)

It is found in 68mg(mg=margin), 636mg and 918. It is also found in omega 110, 429mg, 221, and 2318. It's in the Montfort MS and Codex Wizanburgens (8th century).

It is also found in the Ulmensis manuscript (AD 850), and Codex pal Legionensis (AD *650*). It is found in the German manuscript The Augsburger Bibelhandschrift (2 Cod 3)(AD 1350).

The Comma appears in most Latin manuscripts, which are broadly classified into two groups: The Latin Vulgate & The Old Latin. The Latin Vulgate, translate by Jerome, is the more common Latin translation as it was commissioned by the Catholic church in the late 4th century. The Old Latin is a term used to describe the various Latin translations that existed before the Latin Vulgate. Old Latin translations were made since about the latter half of the 2nd century ^{(F. H. A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the New Testament Textual Criticism, 4th Ed., Vol. 2, (New York: George Bell & Sons, 1894), p. 43).}

Clement of Alexandria

Johannine Comma and Clement of Alexandria

See Main Article: Johannine Comma and Clement of Alexandria

Tertullian

Tertullian (155 - 245) makes a truncated reference to the Comma possibly around 200 AD:

"Ita connexus Patris in Filio et Filii in Paracleto, tres efficit coharentes, alterum ex altere, qui tres unum sunt, non unus, quomodo dictum est, Ego et Pater unum sumus." (Against Praxeas XXV).

"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.""

Tertullian's use of tres unum sunt has been seen by many commentators as supporting authenticity, a textual connection to 1 John 5:7. "It appears to me very clear that Tertullian is quoting I. John v. 7. in the passage now under consideration." Proponents of authenticity emphasize the corroborative nature of examining the evidences of the time as one unit, including the Cyprian quotes and the Old Latin mss. "… the testimony of these early fathers must stand and fall together; as St. Cyprian obviously follows his master Tertullian." Daniel McCarthy, also referencing the views of Wetstein and Nicholas Wiseman, offers an exegesis that the three heavenly witnesses are implied by context. Georg Strecker comments cautiously "An initial echo of the Comma Johanneum occurs as early as Tertullian Adv. Pax. 25.1 (CChr 2.1195; written ca. 215). In his commentary on John 16:14 he writes that the Father, Son, and Paraclete are one (unum), but not one person (unus). However, this passage cannot be regarded as a certain attestation of the Comma Johanneum."

In the book The Text and Canon of the New Testament by Alexander Souter, he states:

Tertullian's regular practice was to use the Greek original and to translate for himself.' But, in addition to his actual mention of existing Latin translations, it is clear that he sometimes used them himself.

The Text and Canon of the New Testament by Alexander Souter

Origen

See Main Article: Johannine Comma and Origen

Cyprian of Carthage

See Main Article: Johannine Comma and Cyprian of Carthage

Theodorus

In the 4th century, Theodorus writes in “A treatise on one God in the Trinity, from the Epistle of John the Evangelist’ the following,

‘…that John in his Epistle, presents God as a Trinity…’

(Ben David, “Three Letters Addressed to the Editor of The Quarterly Review, in which is Demonstrated the Genuineness of The Three Heavenly Witnesses--I John v. 7”, London, 1825). Ben David observes: “This is a remarkable testimony, as it implies the existence and notoriety of the verse about the middle of the fourth century”.

De baptismo et Ps.-Cypriani De rebaptismate recensio nova

In 1916 Bonnae published in Latin the De baptismo et Ps.-Cypriani De rebaptismate recensio nova which contains the series Florilegium patristicum tam veteris quam medii aevi auctores complectens, fasc. 11. It is dated to 258 AD:

“This is He who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood: and it is the Spirit that bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. For three bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one.”

Ephrem the Syrian

Ephrem the Syrian (306 – 373 AD) makes an allusion to Heavenly Witnesses in Latin:

Rhythm the Twenty Eighth

7. If then the Most High avenged the servant of his sister, a prophetess, who intermeddled with him, who shall meddle with the birth of that Majesty, Who is the Son of a Bosom which is consuming Fire, whence there flame forth lightnings and Tongues [of fire]? The prying of daring men is as stubble with Him; and the questioner and the contentious like as chaff, and like as thorns, are devoured. Gehazi also who mocked and was mocked, tried to escape his master's notice and was disgraced. The daring men try to escape men's notice [when pretending] that they baptize in the Three Names. Now at the mouth of Three the judges decide. See here be Three Witnesses Who put an end to all strife! And who would doubt about the holy Witnesses of His Baptism? [9]

Notice he mentions Three and Witnesses which is unique to 1 John 5:7:

baptize in the Three Names

Three

Three Witnesses

the holy Witnesses

The original in Latin:

PAGE 51 D-E

Factum est hoc, hem quid ais? si Altissimus poenam illatae famulo injuriae a sorore Prophetide repoposcit, eo quod minus aeque de ipso sensisset, quis iniquam de Filio Majestatis congitationem cum impunitatis spe suscipiat? quisve non vereatur illum, a quo genitus est, ignem consumentem, unde emicant fulgura, et linguae flammantes, cui si protervi isti Scrutatores componantur, festuca minima res et levissima sunt; cuique in promptu est disceptatores et contensiosos quasi stipulas et vepres concremare. Poenam tulit similem Giezius, qui Prophetam illudere conatus, ipse egregie illusus fuit, cum magistrum vellet capere, captus est. Subdoli Scrutatores vulgo imponere volunt, quo et ipse trinis nominibus baptizare volunt : trium testium consona testificatione judicia constant, tres hic audis testes, quorum testimonio omnis dirimitur quaestio. Jam eritne aliquis, qui sanctissimos sui baptismi testes habeat suspectos? Table of Contents read: Eighty Rythms upon the Faith, against the Disputers. [adv. Scrut.] (t. iii. p. 1) Eighty Rhythms upon the Faith, against the Disputers, 28:7, translated into English by Rev. J. B. Morris, Select Works of S. Ephrem the Syrian (Oxford:, 1847)[10]

Basil

The Comma and Matthew 28:19 mentioned concerning Basil in 350 AD in Adversus Eunomium Book V : Paris 1839 p.446-447

446. Ταῖς θείαις γραφαῖς ἐναντιούμενοι· τί δὲ

ἐναντιοῦσαι τῇ κάλῃ ταύτῃ πίστει, καὶ σωζούσῃ ὁμολογίᾳ,

Θεὸς, Λόγος, Πνεῦμα·

Πατὴρ, Υἱὸς, καὶ Πνεῦμα;

[...]

447. Τριὰς ἐν Τριάδι ὡσαύτως, ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ Ἀποστόλῳ

σαφῶς μαρτυρήσει - ὅτι μὴ τὴν δυάδα ἀναιροῦσι,

μᾶλλον δὲ Τριάδα τὴν Μονάδα κηρύσσοντες, ἀλλ',

ἑνότητα θεότητος εἰδότες, ἐν ἑνὶ προσόπῳ τὰ τρία

κηρύσσουσι.

(A new plea for the authenticity of the text of the three heavenly witnesses by Charles Forster 1867. [11] [12])

Idacius Clarus

Idacius Clarus (350-385 AD) referred to it in [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.] He also has it in Contra Marivadum Arianum.

Et tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in coelo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus, et ii tres unum sunt. Contra Marivadum Arianum. PL 62, col 0359B

Athanasius

350 AD Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione Section from KJV Today

By "Athanasius", it is meant Athanasius (c. 296 – 373 AD) or Pseudo-Athanasius (c. 350 - c. 600 AD). Athanasius quoted the Comma in Disputatio Contra Arium:

"Τί δὲ καὶ τὸ τῆς ἀφέσεως τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν παρεκτικὸν, καὶ ζωοποιὸν, καὶ ἁγιαστικὸν λουτρὸν, οὗ χωρὶς οὐδεὶς ὄψεται τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν, οὐκ ἐν τῇ τρισμακαρίᾳ ὀνομασίᾳ δίδοται τοῖς πιστοῖς; Πρὸς δὲ τούτοις πᾶσιν 'Ἰωάννης φάσκει· Καὶ οἱ τρεῖς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν."

"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) ONLINE LINK to Disputatio Contra Arium

The quote, "Καὶ οἱ τρεῖς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν", is likely from the Comma rather than verse 8 because it lacks "εις (in)". This somewhat hesitant tagging of the Comma at the end of the statement is consistent with the Comma being a minority reading in the early Greek church. The Comma, though worth quoting, was not the crux of Athanasius' argument.

Athanasius quoted another portion of the Comma in Quaestiones Aliae:

"Ὥσπερ ἡ ψυχή µου µία ἐστὶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τρισυπόστατος, ψυχὴ, λόγος, καὶ πνοή· οὕτω καὶ ὁ Θεὸς εἷς ἐστιν, ἀλλ' ἔστι καὶ τρισ υπόστατος, 'Πατὴρ, Λόγος, καὶ Πνεῦµα ἅγιον.... Ὡς γὰρ ψυχὴ, λόγος καὶ πνοὴ τρία πρόσωπα, καὶ μία φύσις ψυχῆς, καὶ οὐ τρεῖς ψυχαί· οὕτω 'Πατὴρ, Λόγος καὶ Πνεῦμα ἅγιον, τρία πρόσωπα, καὶ εἷς τῇ φύσει Θεὸς, καὶ οὐ τρεῖς θεοί."

"Even as my soul is one, but a triune soul, reason, and breath; so also God is one, but is also triune, 'Father, Word, and Holy Ghost.... For as soul, reason and breath are three features, and in substance one soul, and not three souls; so 'Father, Word and Holy Ghost, [are] three persons, and one God in substance, and not three gods." (Translation by KJV Today) ONLINE LINK to Quaestiones Aliae

Those who claim that Athanasius did not quote the Comma elsewhere need to consider that Athanasius also did not quote Matthew 28:19 in some of his most pro-Trinitarian writings such as The Deposition of Arius, Apologia Contra Arianos and the Four Discourses Against the Arians. Matthew 28:19 provides the second most clearest declaration of the Trinity after the Comma, yet Athanasius used other scriptures to support his views on the Trinity. Athanasius was not necessarily interested in establishing the Trinity per se, but rather the consubstantial unity of the Father and the Son. Other texts were more appropriate for this goal. The later Latin Fathers are the ones who were influenced by Neo-Platonic thought and sought to formulate the relationship of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost in a neatly arranged Trinity.

Phoebadius

Jerome wrote of Phoebadius of Agen in his Lives of Illustrious Men. "Phoebadius, bishop of Agen, in Gaul, published a book Against the Arians. There are said to be other works by him, which I have not yet read. He is still living, infirm with age.Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men In the translation by Ernest Cushing Richardson, footnote: "Bishop 353, died about 392". William Hales looks at Phoebadius:

Phoebadius, A. D. 359, in his controversy with the Arians, Cap, xiv. writes, "The Lord says, I will ask of my Father, and He will give you another advocate." (John xiv. 16) Thus, the Spirit is another from the Son as the Son is another from the Father; so, the third person is in the Spirit, as the second, is in the Son. All, however, are one God, because the three are one, (tres unum sunt.) … Here, 1 John v. 7, is evidently connected, as a scriptural argument, with John xiv. 16.William Hales, Inspector, Antijacobin Review, Sabellian Controversy, Letter XII 1816, p. 590. "Denique Dominus: Petam, inquit, a Patre meo et alium advocatum dabit vobis … Sic alius a Filio Spiritus, sicut a Patre Filius. Sic tertia in Spiritu, ut in Filio secunda persona: unus tamen Deus omnia, tres unum sunt. Phoebadius, Liber Contra Arianos

Griesbach argued that Phoebadius was only making an allusion to Tertullian,Griesbach, Diatribe, p. 700 and his unusual explanation was commented on by Reithmayer.Introduction historique et critique aux libres de Nouveau Testament 1861, p.564.In dismissing Phoebadius in this fashion, Griesbach was following Porson, whose explanation began, "Phoebadius plainly imitates Tertullian…and therefore, is not a distinct evidence", Letters to Archdeacon Travis, 1790, p. 247.

Eusebius of Vercelli

Eusebius of Vercelli (283-371 AD) mentions the Comma three times:

Tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in coelo, Pater, Verbum et Spiritus: et in Christo Iesu unum sunt. De Trinitate. PL 62, col 0243C

Tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in coelo, Pater, et Verbum, et Spiritus, et in Christo Iesu unum sunt. De Trinitate. PL 62, col 0246B

Tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in coelo, Pater, et Verbum, et Spiritus, et in Christo Iesu unum sunt. De Trinitate. PL 62, col 0297B

Eusebius 11 (fourth century) has an interesting passage which may be a reference to the Comma. In his Ecclesiastical Theology where he refutes some Sabellian opinions of Marcellus he says:

"[To say] that the Father is the same as the Word inside him, and that his Son is the Word inside him is the mark of the heresy of Sabellius. So again also the saying that the Three are One (Grk), the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; for this is also of Sabellius (Grk)."

Although I am not claiming that Eusebius quotes the Comma here, his phraseology is remarkable. He could have said 'saying that the Three are One is also of Sabellius', but now he adds his last clause in a way that puts special emphasis on the saying 'that the Three are One' - 'for this is also of Sabellius'. Whether Eusebius had the Comma in mind or not, it is clear that the language of the Comma could be regarded as Sabellian. 11 Eusebius of Caesarea, De Ecclesiastica Theologia 3.3-3.4 (PG 24:1001-1004c).

Augustine of Hippo

See Main Article: Johannine Comma and Augustine of Hippo

Gregory of Nazianzus

See Main Article: Johannine Comma and Gregory of Nazianzus

Priscillian

In 380 AD in Spain Priscillian (or one of his associates) referred to the Comma:

“There are three that bear witness on earth: the water, in the flesh, and the blood: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus.”

“Tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in terra: aqua caro et sanguis et haec tria in unum sunt. Et tria sunt quae testimonium dicent in caelo: Pater Verbum et Spiritus et haec tria unum sunt in Christo Iesu.” ^{[Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]}

The earthly witnesses mentioned here have the “flesh” in place of the usual reading of “spirit” (Spirit) in the Textus Receptus.

Jerome's Vulgate

Jerome (382 A.D.) in his book, ‘Prologue to the Canonical Epistles’, quotes the following when discussing the Johannine Comma that,

‘…irresponsible translators left out this testimony in the Greek codices.’

He further adds the following,

‘…these Epistles I have restored to their proper order; which, if arranged agreeably to the original text, and faithfully interpreted in Latin diction, would neither cause perplexity to the readers, nor would the various readings contradict themselves, especially in that place where we read the unity of the Trinity laid down in the Epistle of John. In this I found translators (or copyists) widely deviating from the truth; who set down in their own edition the names only of the three witnesses, that is, the Water, blood, and Spirit; but omit the testimony of the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; by which , above all places, the Divinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is proved to be one’.

John Chrysostom

John Chrysostom (c. 349 – 407 AD) wrote Adversus Judaeos (Homily 1:3) in which he used the following curious phrase:

"Κάτω τρεῖς μάρτυρες, ἄνω τρεῖς μάρτυρες, τὸ ἀπρόσιτον τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ δόξης δηλοῦντες."

Translated as (Translation by KJV Today):

"Three witnesses below, three witnesses above, showing the inaccessibility of God's glory." Adversus Judaeos PDF

Chrysostom is not speaking about the Trinity in the context. He is merely saying that a good number of witnesses testify concerning the ineffable nature of God. Still, it is interesting that Chrysostom would give weight to his argument by using the formula of having three witnesses below and three witnesses above ("above" is to be understood as "heaven", as he previously stated, "ἀλλ' ἀνέβην εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν ("But I went up to heaven [figuratively]"). Since the Comma was already cited in the Latin Church during Chrysostom's time, it is far more candid to suppose that a learned teacher such as Chrysostom knew of the Comma and was alluding to its formula than to suppose that he formulated it by his own imagination.

Pseudo-Chrysostom quotes the Comma in the vocative case in De Cognitione Dei et in Sancta Theophania as follows:

"Ἀλλ', ὦ Πάτερ, καὶ Λόγε, καὶ Πνεῦμα, ἡ τρισυπόστατος οὐσία, καὶ δύναμις, καὶ θέλησις, καὶ ἐνέργεια, ἡμᾶς τοὺς ὁμολογοῦντάς σου τὰς ἀσυγχύτους καὶ ἀδιαιρέτους ὑποστάσεις, ἀξίωσον καὶ τῆς ἐκ δεξιῶν σου στάσεως, ἡνίκα ἔρχῃ ἐξ οὐρανῶν κρῖναι τὴν οἰκουμένην ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ· ὅτι πρέπει σοι δόξα, τιμὴ καὶ προσκύνησις, τῷ Πατρὶ καὶ τῷ Υἱῷ καὶ τῷ ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι, νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ, καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων."

"But, O Father, and Word, and Spirit, the triune being and might and will and power, deem us, who confess you as the unconfused and indivisible substance, also worthy to be the ones standing at your right hand when you come from heaven to judge the world in righteousness, for rightly yours is the glory, honor, and worship, to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, now and for always, and for eternity." (Translation by KJV Today)

De Cognitione Dei et in Sancta Theophania

Pseudo-Chrysostom first refers to the Trinity as Father, Word, and Spirit and then switches to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the same sentence. This switch has no contextual reason. Given the abundance of scriptural allusions in this passage, it is most likely that the two forms of the Trinity are both scriptural allusions (Matthew 28:19 & 1 John 5:7).

Info from KJV Today.

Ignatius of Antioch

See Main Article: Johannine Comma and Ignatius of Antioch

Marcus Celedensis

Coming down to us with the writings of Jerome we have the statement of faith attributed to Marcus Celedensis, friend and correspondent to Jerome, presented to Cyril:

To us there is one Father, and his only Son [who is] very [or true] God, and one Holy Spirit, [who is] very God, and these three are one ; – one divinity, and power, and kingdom. And they are three persons, not two nor one.

Horne, critical study 1933, p. 451 ~ Travis references Jerome as writing approvingly of the confession. George Travis, Letters to Edward Gibbon, 1785 p. 108. The Latin is "Nobis unus Pater, et unus Filius ejus, verus Deus, et unus Spiritus Sanctus, verus Deus; et hi tres unum sunt; una divimtas, et potentia, et regnum. Sunt autem tres Personae, non-duae, non-una" Marc Celed. Exposit. Fid. ad Cyril apud Hieronymi Opera, tom. ix. p. 73g. Frederick Nolan, An inquiry into the integrity of the Greek Vulgate, 1815, p. 291.

Philopatris

Whiston mentions in his book Primitive Christianity Reviv'd: In Four Parts. ¬An Account Of The Faith Of The Two First Centuries, Concerning The ever-blessed Trinity, and the Incarnation of our Lord; in the Words of the Sacred and Primitive Writers themselves; in English : To which is Added, A Small Essay intituled, Primitive Infant-Baptism Reviv'd, Volume 4 on Page 173:

"the Almighty God, the Great, the Immortal, the Heavenly, the Son of the Father, the Spirit proceeding from the Father, One from Three, and Three from One. Esteem these Being to be Jupiter, and esteem him to be God- I know not what thou sayest, One is Three, and Three are One. "

Cyril of Alexandria

Cyril of Alexandria in his Five Tomes Against Nestorius. LFC 47 (1881) Book 5. pp.155-184 has:

Therefore the faith profits them who will hold it unshaken; how it profits, the all-wise John will assure us saying, Who is he that overcometh the world but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? This is He that came through water and blood, Jesus Christ, not in water only, but in water and blood, and the Spirit is Truth; for three testify, the Spirit, the water and the Blood, and the Three are One.

Eucherius of Lyons

Eucherius of Lyons (434 A.D.) in a tract that is titled ‘Formulae Spiritualis Intelligentiae’, verses 7 & 8 are quoted.

Contra Varimadum Arianum

Contra Varimadum Arianum (some claim was written by Idacius Clarus in Spain in the late 300’s, but others by Vigilius Tapsensis in North Africa in the late 400’s) has the following statement:

“John the Evangelist, in his Epistle to the Parthians (i.e. 1 John), says there are three who afford testimony on earth: the water, the blood, and the flesh, and these three are in us; and there are three who afford testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one.”

The three earthly witnesses have “flesh” in this comment rather than the usual spirit (Spirit) of the Textus Receptus.

Leo the Great and the Council of Chalcedon

In the Tome of Leo, written to Archbishop Flavian of Constantinople, read at the Council of Chalcedon on 10 October 451 AD,^{The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Vol 3, The Second Session, pp. 22–23, 2005, Richard Price, editor} 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 …^{Edward Rochie Hardy Christology of the Later Fathers 1954, p. 368}

This epistle from Leo was considered by Richard Porson to be the "strongest proof" of verse inauthenticity who said: "the strongest proof that this verse is spurious may be drawn from the Epistle of Leo the Great to Flavianus upon the Incarnation". ^{Richard Porson, Letters to Archdeacon Travis 1790 p.378}) went coupled with Porson's assertion that the verse was slow to enter into the Latin lines. Porson asserted that the verse "remained a rude, unformed mass, and was not completely licked into shape till the end of the tenth century".^{Letters to Archdeacon Travis 1790 p. 401} In response, Thomas Burgess points out that the context of Leo's argument would not call for the 7th verse. And that the verse was referenced in a fully formed manner centuries earlier than Porson's claim, at the time of Fulgentius and the Council of Carthage.^{Thomas Burgess, An introduction to the controversy on the disputed verse of st. John, 1835, p. xxvi} Burgess pointed out that there were multiple confirmations that the verse was in the Latin Bibles of Leo's day. Burgess argued, that the fact that Leo could move from verse 6 to 8 for argument context is, in the bigger picture, favourable to authenticity. "Leo's omission of the Verse is not only counterbalanced by its actual existence in contemporary copies, but the passage of his Letter is, in some material respects, favourable to the authenticity of the Verse, by its contradiction to some assertions confidently urged against the Verse by its opponents, and essential to their theory against it."^{Thomas Burgess, An introduction to the controversy on the disputed verse of st. John, 1835, p. xxxi}

Today, with the discovery of additional Old Latin evidences in the 19th century, the discourse of Leo is rarely referenced as a significant evidence against verse authenticity.

Vigilius Tapensi

Vigilius Tapensis (484 A.D.) in his writings on the Trinity, quotes 1 John 5:7 in its entirety. This is found in his ‘Works of Athanasius’ and also in his tract against Varimadus the Arian under the name of Idacius Clarus.

Council of Carthage

Church Council of Carthage (485 A.D.) Eugenius was the spokesman for the bishops of Africa, Mauritania, Sardinia, Corsica and the Balearick Isles, these bishops numbered 461 who stood in defense of the Trinity and used 1 John 5:7-8. Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ. The bishops used 1 John 5:7-8 against the Arians proving Jesus is God and God is a Trinity. ‘Victor of Vitensis, Historia persecutionis Africanae’

His words are recorded, :

‘…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’.

Victor Vitensis

The North African Victor Vitensis attended the Council of Carthage in 484, after the Arian Vandal king Huneric had instructed the Trinitarian bishops of North Africa to meet there with Arian bishops to discuss the subject of the Trinity.

461 Trinitarian African bishops attended, led by Eugene of Carthage who intended to present a statement of faith at the council, and this manifesto was incorporated into Victor Vitensis’ account. It speaks of the Comma:

“Et ut luce clarius unius divinitatis esse cum Patre et Filio Spiritum Sanctum doceamus, Joannis Evangelistae testimonio comprobatur. Ait namque: Tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in coelo: Pater, Verbum et Spiritus Sanctus et hi tres unum sunt.”

“And as a shining light teaching the unity of the divinity of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, the testimony of John the Evangelist demonstratively testifies: ‘There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.’”

It is rather amazing to watch modern bible critics such as James White, Bart Ehrman, Dan Wallace and others, claim that the Comma simply originated from Erasmus. Victor Vitensis reveals that a prominent bishop was willing to use the Comma at a theological conference defending the Trinity. James White said in 2006: “...anyone who defends the insertion of the Comma is, to me, outside the realm of meaningful scholarship... This brand of TR Onlyism/KJV Onlyism is defenseless apologetically...” I suppose White also rejects these 461 Trinitarian African bishops as KJV kooks also.

Codex Fuldensis

See Also Johannine Comma and Codex Fuldensis

Codex Frisingensis

Codex Frisingensis, or manuscript r, 64, or Frisingensia Fragmenta (6th-7th century), contains the full text of the Comma.

León palimpsest

León palimpsest, aka Codex Legionensis, or manuscript l or 67 (7th century) contains the Comma with slight variation in wording (Nestle-Aland: Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th revised edition (2006)).

Church Fathers

The Council of Carthage in 481 AD included 461 of Bishops who specifically give the verse, with special emphasis, in the doctrinal battles contra the Arians under Huneric. In their situation they where they faced with persecution and would have been extra careful to stick with accepted scripture. In his Letters to Edward Gibbon (1785) George Travis points says:

"That it may appear more clear than the light, that the divinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, is one, see it proved by the Evangelist St. John, who writes thus: " There are three who bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one." [13]

There are a number of other references (Fulgentius .. book on Trinity to Felix Notarius contra Arians .. and the Greek writing on the disputation between Athanasius and Arius attributed to Maximus the Confessor are two. Plus the 400s-Carthage period actually has more than one source.)

550 AD Old Latin ms r has it

African writers

450-530 AD Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:

A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven"

B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]

C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]

Cassiodorus

500 AD Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]

In his composition Complexiones in Epistolis Apostolorum, as follows:

“Cui rei testificantur in terra tria mysteria: aqua sanguis et spiritus, quae in passione Domini leguntur impleta: in coelo autem Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus, et hi tres unus est Deus.”

“And the three mysteries testify – on earth: water, blood and spirit. The fulfillment of which we read about in the passion of the Lord. And in heaven: Father and Son and Holy Spirit. And these three are one God.”

Fulgentius Ruspensis

Fulgentius Ruspensis (who lived in the 6th century) quoted from the Comma in 527 A.D. and even referred back to Cyprian's quotation of it in 250 A.D.,

“For the blessed John the Apostle testifies, saying: ‘There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit; and the three are one.' This is also confessed by the most blessed martyr Cyprian in the letter On the Unity of the Church, saying: ‘He who breaks the peace and concord of Christ, he does against Christ’, who in another place says in addition to a collection of the Church, says, ‘scatters the Church of Christ’. And in order to show that there is one Church of the one God, he immediately inserted this into the testimonies of the Scriptures: ‘The Lord says: I and the Father are one. And again: of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: 'And the three are one.’

He also said, “Likewise regarding it: ‘There are three’, he says, who are said to testify in heaven, ‘the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one.’”

Speculum

550 AD The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]

Codex Guelferbytanus 99 Weissenburgensis

1 John 5.7 Cod. Guelf. 99 Weiss. Et spiritus est veritas quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant spiritus et aqua et sanguis. et tres unum sunt. Sicut etiam in caelum tres sunt pater. verbum. et spiritus. et tres unum sunt [1]

750 AD Codex Guelferbytanus 99 Weissenburgensis referred to the coma in Latin:

Et spiritus est veritas quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant

spiritus et aqua et sanguis. et tres unum sunt. Sicut etiam in

caelum tres sunt pater. verbum. et spiritus. et tres unum sunt

F. H. A. Scrivener said:

In one of the most ancient which contain it, cav., ver. 8 precedes ver. 7 (as appears also in m. tol. demid. and a codex at Wolfenbüttel, Wizanburg. 99 [viii] cited by Lachmann), while in the margin is written ‘audiat hoc Arius et ceteri,’ as if its authenticity was unquestioned. [Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, ed. Edward Miller, Fourth Edition., vol. 2 (London; New York; Cambridge: George Bell & Sons; Deighton Bell & Co., 1894), p. 403.]

Jan Krans said:

"nr. 99 of the Weissenburg collection in the Herzog August library in Wolfenbüttel (’Codex Guelferbytanus 99 Weissenburgensis’). It is the so-called ‘Weissenburg Augustine’, containing homilies by Augustine, in which also the Catholic Epistles, the Letters to Timothy, Titus and Philemon, and some other works are found (see Hans Butzmann, Die Weissenburger Handschriften ..., 1964, pp. 283-287). Wizanburgensis Revisited by Jan Krans

Wizanburgensis

See Codex Guelferbytanus 99 Weissenburgensis

Church Council of Charlemagne

During the Church Council of Charlemagne in the late 8th century, the Emperor Charlemagne assembled all the learned men to revise the manuscripts of the Bible by cleaning up the mistakes that had creep in. The end result, which was delivered by Alciunus, shows 1 John 5:7-8 as it appears in our King James Bible.

Waldensians

157-1400 AD Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse.

Commentary on Revelation

Ambrose Ansbert refers to the scripture verse in his Revelation commentary:

Although the expression of faithful witness found therein, refers directly to Jesus Christ alone, --- yet it equally characterises the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; according to these words of St. John. There are three which bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.

Robert Jack, Remarks on the Authenticity of 1 John v. 7 c. 1834 ...sicut scriptum est :

Tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt de caelo, Pater et Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus, et hi tres unum sunt, in primo huius opens libro aperte docuimus. Ambrose Ansbert, Ambrosij Ansberti ... Apocalypsim libri decem

"Ambrose Ansbert, in the middle of the eighth century, wrote a comment upon the Apocalypse, in which this verse is applied, in explaining the 5th verse of the first chapter of the Revelation". David Harrower, A Defence of the Trinitarian System, 1822 pp.43–44

Codex Athous Lavrensis

1 John 5 section in the 8th/9th century Codex Athous Lavrensis[2].

Codex Athous Lavrensis, Ψ, (GA 044) is a Greek New Testament dated to the 8th/9th century.

Minuscule 221

A marginal note in Minuscule 221 has a marginal note:

οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν ουρανω: πατηρ, λογος, και πνευμα αγιον, και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν

(‘There are three who testify in heaven: The Father, Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one’).

Codex Theodulphianus

The 10th-century Latin manuscript Codex Theodulphianus contains the Comma Johanneum in its usual location (unlike the Codex Cavensis and Codex Toletanus).

Codex Complutensis I

The 10th-century mss has the comma Image 11 VL 109/Vg X: Codex Complutensis primus (Madrid, Biblioteca Histórica, Universidad Complutense, BH MSS 31, folio 326r. Page 119

Lombard, Second Distinction

Lombard, Second Distinction (Libri Quattuor Sententiarum, 1150 A.D.) says:

"That the Father and the Son, says he, not by confusion of persons, but by Unity of Nature, St. John hath taught us in his Canonical Epistle, saying, 'There are three which bare record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.'" (http://rarebooks.dts.edu/viewbook.aspx?bookid=1341) [p. 14]

When we answer three persons—we say as follows: It is indubitably true that no one other thing is to be found there which those three are, except essence: for those three are one thing, that is, divine essence . . . . But since the Catholic faith professed there to be three, as John says in the canonical Epistle: There are three who give witness in heaven, the question arose about what those three might be.Lombard, The Sentences, 1.25.2.4; emphasis original.

Peter Lombard, The Sentences, 1.2.5.3, 1.21.3.2, 1.25.2.4. The translation used here is from Peter Lombard, The Sentences, trans. Giulio Sinalo, 4 vols. (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2007–2010), 1:18, 121, 137.

Fourth Lateran Council in 1215

The medieval Latin church was apparently cognizant of the controversy surrounding the authenticity of the Comma, as is demonstrated by the following excerpt from Canon 2 of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215:

"For the faithful of Christ, he says, are not one in the sense that they are some one thing that is common to all, but in the sense that they constitute one Church by reason of the unity of the Catholic faith and one kingdom by reason of the union of indissoluble charity, as we read in the canonical Epistle of St. John: "There are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one" (1 John 5: 7). And immediately it is added: "And there are three who give testimony on earth, the spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one" (1 John 5: 8), as it is found in some codices." (The Canons of the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215)

Codex Vaticanus

See Also Johannine Comma and Codex Vaticanus

Codex Ottobonianus

See Also Johannine Comma and Codex Ottobonianus

Pre Wycliffe

Adam Clarke claimed to posses an Earlier English version of the bible than Wycliff that said:

For three ben that geven witnessing in heven the Fadir, the Word or Sone and the Hooly Goost, and these three ben oon. And three ben that geven witnessing in erthe, the Spirit, Water, and Blood, and these three ben oon.

He said:

...both these readings are united in an ancient English manuscript of my own, which contains the Bible from the beginning of Proverbs to the end of the New Testament, written on thick strong vellum, and evidently prior to most of those copies attributed to Wiclif. See Also Adam Clarke on the Johannine Comma

Wycliffe

Wycliffe here reads “son” instead of “word”:

For thre ben, that yyuen witnessing in heuene, the Fadir, the Sone, and the Hooli Goost; and these thre ben oon.

Donation of Constantine

The Donation of Constantine was believed to be Genuine for hundreds of years (approximately 600 years from the 8th to the 15th Century.) It was admitted as a forgery in the 15th Century by Rome after Lorenzo Valla, a Mentor of Erasmus, wrote De falso credita et ementita Constantini Donatione declamatio which analyzed the document known as the Constitutum Constantini (or "donatio Constantini" as he refers to it in his writings), or the Donation of Constantine. The Donation of Constantine basically reiterates 1 John 5:7:

"...has taught us, in God the Father, the almighty maker of Heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible; and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord God, through whom all things are created; and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and vivifier of the whole creature. We confess these, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, in such way that, in the perfect Trinity, there shall also be a fulness of divinity and a unity of power. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; and these three are one in Jesus Christ." [14]

The Greeks used the Donation of Constantine also [15], and never doubted the genuineness of the Donation of Constantine which basically states 1 John 5:7. This begs the question: if a false document was made to be presented as real, using a verse known to be false would have been an obvious clue that the document was a fraud. Rather the opposite is true here it is accepted by all as fact. The Greeks knew of 1 John 5:7 and never registered a complaint regarding the verse and had no objections to it being authentic until completely proven otherwise. If 1 John 5:7 was apocryphal, Greeks not have so readily accepted this document. Greeks never objected to 1 John 5:7; all such objections to came from Westerners studying the Greek.

Codex Montfortianus (Minuscule 61)

See Main Article: Johannine Comma and Codex Montfortianus

Joseph Bryennios

See Also Johannine Comma and Joseph Bryennios

Giannozzo Manetti

1 John 5.7 in Giannozzo Manetti's Latin New Testament [3].

The Johannine Comma appears in Giannozzo Manetti's New Testament. It is a Latin manuscript copy from the very end of the manuscript era, based upon Greek and possibly the first ever Bible mss not to have Nomina Sacra. It contains the the Comma in similar wording to that in Ottobonianus, but with a different verb:

Quia tres sunt qui in celo testificantus: pater, verbum & spirit sanctus, & hi tres unum sunt. et tres sunt qui in terra testificant, spiritus aqua & sanguis.

Complutensian Polyglot

See Also Johannine Comma and Complutensian Polyglot

Erasmus

See Main Article: Johannine Comma and Erasmus

Ratio Seu Methodus and Paraphrase

Erasmus included the Comma, with commentary, in his paraphrase edition, first published in 1520:

"For the Spirit too is truth just as the Father and the Son are. The truth of all three is one, just as the nature of all three is one, just as the nature of all three is one. For there are three in heaven who furnish testimony to Christ: the Father, the Word, and the Spirit. The Father, who not once but twice sent forth his voice from the sky and publicly testified that this was his uniquely beloved Son in whom he found no offence; the Word, who, by performing so many miracles and by dying and rising again, showed that he was the true Christ, both God and human alike, the reconciler of God and humankind; the holy Spirit, who descended on his head at baptism and after the resurrection glided down upon the disciples. The agreement of these three is absolute. The Father is the author, the Son the messenger, the Spirit the inspirer. There are likewise three things on earth which attest Christ: the human spirit which he laid down on the cross, the water, and the blood which flowed from his side in death. And these three witnesses are in agreement. They testify that he was a man. The first three declare him to be God." (p. 174) Collected Works of Erasmus – Paraphrase on the First Epistle of John Translator John J Bateman

And in "Ratio seu Methodus compendio perveniendi ad veram theologiam", first published in 1518, Erasmus included the Comma in the interpretation of John 12 and 13. Erasmian scholar John Jack Bateman, discussing the Paraphrase and the Ratio verae theologiae, says of these uses of the Comma that "Erasmus attributes some authority to it despite any doubts he had about its transmission in the Greek text."^{John Jack Bateman (1931–2011), editor. Opera omnia : recognita ed adnotatione critica instructa notisque illustrata, 1997, p. 252.}

Diego López de Zúñiga (Stunica)

Diego López de Zúñiga (Stunica) wrote a half page response to Erasmus concerning the Comma in 1520[4].

In 1520, Complutensian Polyglot editor Diego López de Zúñiga (Stunica) wrote a half page response to Erasmus concerning the Comma.

Annotationes Iacobi Lopidis Stunicae contra Erasmum Roterodamum in defensionem tralationis Noui Testamenti - Volume 1 of Diapositivas (Biblioteca Histórica UCM) 1520 by Diego López de Zúñiga y Sotomayor - Publisher per Arnaldum Guilielmum de Brocario. 116 pages

Pre Lutheren German Bibles

See main article Johannine Comma and German Bibles

Luther Bible

The Comma was omitted from the German bible during Luther's lifetime, and inserted into the German text for the first time in 1574 by a Frankfurt publisher.

The following is from Knittel following Walch:

Luther's commentary on the verse, written after the Greek New Testaments were including the verse.

Martin Luther's commentary on the heavenly witnesses (c. 1543-1545)

For, on V. 7, " For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one;" he says, . "

This is the testimony in heaven, which is afforded by three witnesses*is in heaven, and remaineth in heaven. This order is to be carefully noted; namely, that the witness who is last among the witnesses in heaven, is first among the witnesses on earth, and very properly.

And on the 6th verse of the Vth chapter he says,

This passage is certainly difficult and obscure. John here adduces a testimony that Jesus is the Christ. His theme therefore, or main topic, is, the testimony that Jesus is the Christ; or wherewith is it proved that he is the Messiah or Christ. For this purpose be (i.e. John) appeals to a twofold testimony: the one is in heaven, the other on earth. Both also have three witnesses; because, "in the mouth of two or three witnesses, truth is established."

John therefore adduces a testimony where with he intends to prove that Jesus is the Christ. Now, this testimony is a testimony of God, and not of man: for the Father testifieth of his Son. If we receive the witness of men, (saith John, ver. 9.) the witness of God is greater, which he hath testified of his Son. But this divine testimony is twofold. It is given partly in heaven, partly on earth:*that given in heaven has three witnesses, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: the other, given on earth, has also three witnesses; namely, the spirit, the water, and the blood. (New criticisms on the celebrated text, 1 John v. 7, by Franz Anton Knittel - 1785 German ed .. 1829 English translation by William Alleyn Evanson)

Pierre Olivetan

Olivetan was the first translator of the French reformed Bible. He kept the Comma:

• Car il en y a troys qui donnent tesmoingnage au ciel: le pere, la parolle, et

le sainct esperit, et ces troys sont ung. Aussi en y a trois …

In the margin he wrote:

• Ceste sentence commenceant à Car, jusque à Aussi, ne se trouve point

en plusieurs exemplaires anciens, tant Grecz que Latins.

Thomas Naogeorgus

Grantley McDonald says in his article Raising the Ghost of Arius: Erasmus, the Johannine Comma and Religious Difference in Early Modern Europe:

In his detailed commentary on the first Epistle of John (1544), the marginal Lutheran Thomas Naogeorgus (Kirchmeyer) left the comma out of the text. In the commentary he explained that the comma was absent from the codices he had inspected, and therefore seems to be an addition. Moreover, he adds, John is not talking of the Trinity at this point, which he does at length elsewhere; he is speaking here of those things that witness to the divinity of Christ. Moreover, Naogeorgus adds that he cannot see the point of having witnesses in heaven, since by the time we get there we will have no need of such testimonies. This rather unusual argument apparently derives from Luther, and suggests that Naogeorgus may have been in possession of notes taken during Luther’s 1527 lectures on the first Epistle of John. Indeed, Naogeorgus points out that Luther, a “sincere exponent of the holy Scriptures,” left the comma out of his translation. He ends his reflections on the comma by wondering why John should have applied masculine participles to things that are grammatically neuter. But for Naogeorgus, unlike for nineteenth century critics like Nolan and Dabney, this apparent grammatical dissonance hints at the textual difficulty of the passage rather than demonstrating its authenticity.^[164]

Naogeorgos, 1544, 128r-v: “In omnibus ferè Latinis, & nonnullis quoque Græcis, quæ ipse uiderim, exemplaribus, ante textum, Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra &c.legitur: Quoniam tres sunt qui testimonum dant in cœlo. pater, uerbum & spiritus sanctus, & hi tres unum sunt. Quo ego propter alterius sententiæ similitudinem ab aliquo adiectum existimo, non à Ioanne scriptum. Neque uideo quid ad hunc locum faciat. Non enim Ioannes hîc agit de personarum trinitate (quam uocant) nec de diuinitatis [128v] trinitate, quæ aliàs sufficienter & clare tradidit, sed ostendere uult, quibus testimonijs ostensus & declaratus sit Iesus quòd sit filius Dei, & hactenus probetur & ostendatur. Neque hoc intelligere possum, cui rei faciat testimonium in cœlo, quum in cœlum nobis uenientibus nullo sit opus testimonio. Videbimus enim facie ad faciem. Enimvero sane in terris tam indigemus testimonijs, ut sine illis fides nostra consistere nequeat. D. M. Lutherus syncerus sacrarum literarum assertor, etiam illam particulam in suo nouo testamento omisit, intelligens nimirum esse adulterinam, & nihi facere ad hunc locum. Miror etiam, quamobrem Ioannes tribus neutris masculina & postposuerit, & præposuerit, irata Grammatica, nisi fortaßis scriptura est deprauata.”

Naogeorgus finishes his commentary (150v) with a rare modesty and flexibility, though he also does not fail to take the opportunity to criticise the Roman Catholic church’s attitude to authority: “Hæc in epistolam Ioannis primam pro mediocritate ingenij & intellectus nostri in uerbo Dei annotauimus, permittentes liberum pijs omnibus & Apostolicæ ecclesiæ de his iudicium, nec pro oraculis hæc nostra habere cupimus, ut Papistæ solent. Sit unicuique liberum dissentire, neque dissentiens minus mihi amicus erit, & ego quoque ubi è scripturis admonitus me errasse comperero, aliud sentire, & hæc corrigere non grauabor.” There is an anonymous German translation of Naogeorgus’ commentary (Stuttgart [?], 1554), in Heidelberg cod. Pal. Germ. 522, with the relevant passage on 234r-235r.

William Tyndale

Tyndale's 1534 bible has: (For ther are thre that beare recorde in heuen, the father, the word and the holy ghost. And these thre are one).

Sessa

1 John 5:7 in the 1538 Sessa Greek New Testament

In 1538 Ioannes Antonius de Sabio printed a Greek New Testament edition which was funded by Melchior Sessa.

ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, πατήρ, λόγος, καὶ πνεῦμα ἅγιον, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι.

It has no definite articles before "πατήρ", "λόγος", and "πνεῦμα ἅγιον". πνεῦμα ἅγιον is reversed to ἅγιον πνεῦμα in most TR editions.

Tesfa Seyon

[5].

1 John 5:7 quoted in Latin.

Tesfa Seyon (1508) was an Ethiopian monk and intellectual also known as Pietro Malbazó, Mlheso, Indiano. In 1550 he wrote Modus baptizandi Preces et Benedictiones, quibus Ecclesia Aethiopum utitur.

Geneva Bible

The Geneva Bible footnotes say of 1 John 5:7:

Hee prooueth the excellencie of Christ, in whom onely all things are giuen vs[,] by sixe witnesses, three heauenly, and three earthly, which wholly and fully agree together. The heauenly witnesses are: the Father who sent the Sonne, the worde it selfe which became flesh, and the holy Ghost. The earthly witnesses are, water, (that is our sanctification) blood, (that is our iustification) the Spirit, (that is, acknowled[ging] of God the Father in Christ by faith through the testimonie of the holy Ghost.)

The Belgic Confession

The Belgic Confession of 1561 states,

“The testimonies of the Holy Scriptures, which teach us to believe in this Holy Trinity, are written in many places of the Old Testament, which need not be enumerated but only chosen with discretion…

“There are three who bear witness in heaven– the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit– and these three are one.”

In all these passages we are fully taught that there are three persons in the one and only divine essence. And although this doctrine surpasses human understanding, we nevertheless believe it now, through the Word, waiting to know and enjoy it fully in heaven.” (The Belgic Confession, (CRTA), article 9.)

The Heidelberg Catechism

The Heidelberg Catechism of 1563 says,

“Since there is but one only divine essence, why speakest thou of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?

Answer: Because God has so revealed himself in his word, ^[b] that these three distinct persons are the one only true and eternal God.”

Footnote b says,

“…1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one…” (The Heidelberg Catechism, (CRTA), section 8.)

Jean Crespin

Crespin's edition in 1553 contains the Comma.

Crespin's edition in 1564 contains the Comma.

Jean Crespin in his 1553 and his 1564 Tês Kainês Diathêkês contains the Comma.

John Calvin

John Calvin on the Comma said:

"However, the passage flows better when this clause is added, and as I see that it is found in the best and most approved copies, I am inclined to receive it as the true reading."

"There are three that bear record in heaven"

...And the meaning would be, that God, in order to confirm most abundantly our faith in Christ, testifies in three ways that we ought to acquiesce in him. For as our faith acknowledges three persons in the one divine essence, so it is called in so really ways to Christ that it may rest on him.

When he says, These three are one, he refers not to essence, but on the contrary to consent; as though he had said that the Father and his eternal Word and Spirit harmoniously testify the same thing respecting Christ. Hence some copies have εἰς ἓν, "for one." But though you read ἓν εἰσιν, as in other copies, yet there is no doubt but that the Father, the Word and the Spirit are said to be one, in the same sense in which afterwards the blood and the water and the Spirit are said to agree in one.^{John Calvin, Commentaries on the catholic epistles, tr. and ed. by John Owen, 1855, p. 258.}

7. There are three that bear record in heaven. The whole of this verse has been by some omitted. Jerome thinks that this has happened through design rather than through mistake, and that indeed only on the part of the Latins. But as even the Greek copies do not agree, I dare not assert any thing on the subject. Since, however, the passage flows better when this clause is added, and as I see that it is found in the best and most approved copies, I am inclined to receive it as the true reading.1 And the meaning would be, that God, in order to confirm most abundantly our faith in Christ, testifies in three ways that we ought to acquiesce in him. For as our faith acknowledges three persons in the one divine essence, so it is called in so many ways to Christ that it may rest on him. (Calvin, J., & Owen, J. (2010). Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles (pp. 257–258). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.)

[16]

Christopher Plantinus

Comma Johanneum appears in the 1574 Tes kaines diathekes hapanta of Christopher Plantinus

In Christopher Plantinus' Tes kaines diathekes hapanta. Novum Jesu Christi testamentum, December 22, 1574, in Antwerp he has 1 John 5:7 on page 620. [17] This New Testament was created by the Louvaine University

Clementine Vulgate

The Clementine Vulgate of 1592 has the Comma:

Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in cælo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. 8Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra: spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis: et hi tres unum sunt.

Indeed there are three who give testimony in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one. And there are three who give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one.

— Sixto-Clementine Vulgate

Elias Hutter

See Main Article: Johannine Comma and Hutter's Polyglot

Greek commentaries

Emanual Calecas in the 14th and Joseph Bryennius (c. 1350–1430) in the 15th century reference the Comma in their Greek writings.

The Orthodox accepted the Comma as Johannine scripture notwithstanding its absence in the Greek manuscripts line. The Orthodox Confession of Faith, published in Greek in 1643 by the multilingual scholar Peter Mogila specifically references the Comma. "Accordingly the Evangelist teacheth (1 John v. 7.) There are three that bear Record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost and these three are one ..." ^{The orthodox confession of the catholic and apostolic Eastern-Church, p.16, 1762. Greek and Latin in Schaff The Creeds of Christendom p. 275, 1877}

[18]

Giovanni Diodati

1 John 5:7-8 in the French New Testament of 1644 of Giovanni Diodati[6].

1 John 5:7-8 Annotations in the French New Testament of 1644 of Giovanni Diodati[7].

French:

• 1644 Car il y en a trois qui tesmoignent au ciel; le Pere, la Parole, & le Saint Esprit: & ces trois sont vne mesme chose. Aussi y en at-il trois qui tesmoignent en la terre; l’Esprit, & l’eau, & le sang: & ces trois se rapportent a cette chose vnique-là. (Giovanni Diodati)

Italian:

London Polyglott

See main article: Johannine Comma and Walton's Polyglot

The Westminster Confession of Faith

The Westminster Confession of Faith 1646 in Chapter II, Of God, and the Holy Trinity gives 1 John 5:7 as their first reference:

III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding: the Son is eternally begotten of the Father: the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

1 John v. 7; Matt. iii. 16, 17; Matt. xxviii. 19; 2 Cor. xiii. 14; John i. 14, 18; John xv. 26; Gal. iv. 6.

The London Baptist Confession of 1689 also specifically mentions 1 John 5:7 as being the first verse used to teach and support the doctrine of the Trinity. They certainly believed it was inspired Scripture. [19]

Also:

"In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided: the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son; all infinite, without beginning, therefore but one God, who is not to be divided in nature and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties and personal relations; which doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God, and comfortable dependence on him. (1 John 5:7; Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Exodus 3:14; John 14:11; 1 Corinthians 8:6; John 1:14,18; John 15:26; Galatians 4:6) [20]

Hugh Binning

Hugh Binning (1627–1653) wrtoe in The Unity of the Divine Essence, and the Trinity of Persons

1 John 5:7

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Deut. vi.4. -- "Hear O Israel the Lord our God is one Lord." -- 1 John v.7. "There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one."

"Great is the mystery of godliness," 1 Tim. iii.16. Religion and true godliness is a bundle of excellent mysteries -- of things hid from the world, yea, from the wise men of the world, (1 Cor. ii.6.) and not only so, but secrets in their own nature, the distinct knowledge whereof is not given to saints in this estate of distance and absence from the Lord. There is almost nothing in divinity, but it is a mystery in itself, how common soever it be in the apprehensions of men. For it is men's overly,

(139) and common and slender apprehensions of them, which make them look so commonly upon them. There is a depth in them, but you will not know it, till you search it, and sound it, and the more you sound, you shall find it the more profound. But there are some mysteries small and some great. There is a difference amongst them; all are not of one stature, of one measure. The mystery of Christ's incarnation and death and resurrection, is one of the great mysteries of religion, "God manifest in the flesh." Yet I conceive there is a greater mystery than it, and of all mysteries in nature or divinity I know none equal to this, -- the Holy Trinity. And it must needs be greatest of all, and without controversy greatest, because it is the beginning and end of all, -- fons et finis omnium. All mysteries have their rise here, and all of them return hither. This is furthest removed from the understandings of men, -- what God himself is, for himself is infinitely above any manifestation of himself. God is greater than God manifested in the flesh, though in that respect he be too great for us to conceive. There is a natural desire in all men to know, and, if any thing be secret and wonderful the desire is the more inflamed after the knowledge of it. The very difficulty or impossibility of attaining it, instead of restraining the curiosity of man's spirit, doth rather incense it. Nitimur in vetitum(140) is the fruit, the sad fruit we plucked and eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If the Lord reveal any thing plainly in his word to men, that is despised and set at nought, because it is plain, whereas the most plain truths, which are beyond all controversy, are the most necessary, and most profitable, for our eternal salvation. But if there be any secret mystery in the Scriptures, which the Lord hath only pointed out more obscurely to us, reserving the distinct and clear understanding of it to himself, (Deut. xxix.29.), -- that is the apple which our accursed natures will long for, and catch after, though there be never so much choice of excellent saving fruit in the paradise of the Scriptures besides. If the ark be covered to keep men from looking into it, that doth rather provoke the curious spirit of man to pry into it, 1 Sam. vi.10. If the Lord show his wonderful glory in the mount, and charge his people not to come near, lest the glorious presence of God kill them, he must put rails about it, to keep them back, or else they will be meddling. Such is the unbridled license of our minds, and the perverse dispositions of our natures, that where God familiarly invites us to come, -- what he earnestly presseth us to search and know, -- that we despise as trivial and common, and what he compasseth about with a divine darkness of inaccessible light, and hath removed far from the apprehensions of all living, that we will needs search into, and wander into those forbidden compasses, with daring boldness. I conceive this holy and profound mystery is one of those "secret things" which it belongs to God to know, for who knoweth the Father but the Son, or the Son but the Father, or who knoweth the mind of God but the Spirit? Yet the foolish minds of men will not be satisfied with the believing ignorance of such a mystery, but will needs inquire into those depths, that they may find satisfaction for their reason. But, as it happeneth with men who will boldly stare upon the sun, their eyes are dazzled and darkened with its brightness, or those that enter into a labyrinth, which they can find no way to come out, but the further they go into it, the more perplexed it is, and the more intricate, even so it befalls many unsober and presumptuous spirits, who, not being satisfied with the simple truth of God, clearly asserting that this is, endeavour to examine it according to reason, and to solve all the objections of carnal wit and reason, (which is often "enmity against God,") not by the silence of the Scriptures, but by answers framed according to the several capacities of men. I say, all this is but daring to behold the infinite glory of God with eyes of flesh, which makes them darkened in mind, and vanishing in their expressions, while they seek to behold this inaccessible light, while they enter into an endless labyrinth of difficulties out of which the thread of reason and disputation can never extricate them or lead them forth. But the Lord hath showed us "a more excellent way," though it may be despicable to men. Man did fall from blessedness by his curious and wretched aim at some higher happiness and more wisdom; the Lord hath chosen another way to raise him up again, by faith rather than knowledge, by believing rather than disputing. Therefore the great command of the gospel is this, to receive with a ready and willing mind whatsoever the Lord saith to us, whatsoever it may appear to sense and reason, to dispute no more, to search no more into the secret of divine mysteries, as if by searching we could find them out "unto perfection," but to believe what is spoken, "till the day break, and the shadows flee away," and the darkness of ignorance be wholly dispelled by the rising of the Sun of righteousness. We are called then to receive this truth, -- That God is one, truly one, and yet there are three in this one, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This, I say, you must believe, because the wisdom of God saith it, though you know not how it is, or how it can be. Though it seem a contradiction in reason, a trinity in unity, yet you must lead your reason captive to the obedience of faith, and silence it with this one answer, The Lord hath said it. If thou go on to dispute, and to inquire, "How can these things be?" thou art escaped from under the power of faith, and art fled into the tents of human wisdom, where thou mayest learn atheism, but no religion, for "the world by wisdom knew not God," 1 Cor. i.21. And certainly, whoever he be that will not quiet his conscience, upon the bare word of truth in this particular, but will call in the help of reason and disputation, how to understand and maintain it, I think he shall be further from the true knowledge of God and satisfaction of mind than before. There is no way here, but to flee into Paul's sanctuary, "Who art thou, O man, that disputest?" Whenever thou thinkest within thyself? How may this be, how can one be three, and three one? then withal let this of Paul sound in thine ears, "Who art thou, O man, who disputest?" Think that thou art man, think that he is God! Believing ignorance is much better than rash and presumptuous knowledge. Ask not a reason of these things, but rather adore and tremble at the mystery and majesty of them. Christianity is "foolishness" to the world upon this account, because it is an implicit faith so to speak, given to God. But there is no fear of being deceived, -- though he lead the blind by a way thou knowest not, yet he cannot lead thee wrong. This holy simplicity in believing every word of God, and trusting without more trying by disputation, is the very character of Christianity, and it will be found only true wisdom. For if any will become wise, he must be a fool in men's account. That he may be wise, he must quit his reason to learn true religion, which indeed is a more excellent and divine reason, neither is it contrary to it, though it be high above it.

In this place of Moses, you have the unity of God asserted, "The Lord thy God is one Lord," and it is indeed engraven on the very hearts of men by nature, that God is one. For all may know that the common notion and apprehension of God is, that he is a most perfect Being, -- the original of all things, -- most wise, most powerful, and infinite in all perfections. Now common reason may tell any man that there can be but one thing most perfect and excellent, there can be but one infinite, -- one almighty, -- one beginning and end of all, -- one first mover, one first cause, "of whom are all things, and who is of none."

Again, in this place of John ye have a testimony of the blessed trinity of persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in that holy unity of essence. The great point which John hath in hand is this fundamental of our salvation that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and Saviour of the world, in whom all our confidence should be placed, and upon whom we should lean the weight of our souls. And this he proves by a two-fold testimony -- one out of heaven, another in the earth. There are three bearing witness to this truth in heaven, "the Father the Word," (that is, Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, whom this apostle calls the Word of God, or Wisdom of God, John i.1) and the Holy Ghost. The Father witnessed to this truth in an audible voice out of heaven, when Christ was baptized, (Mat. iii.17) "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Here is the Father's testimony of the Son when he was baptized which was given very solemnly in a great congregation of people, and divinely, with great glory and majesty from heaven, as if the heavens had opened upon him, and the inaccessible light of God had shined down on him This was confirmed in the transfiguration, (Mat. xvii.5) where the Lord gave a glorious evidence -- to the astonishment of the three disciples -- how he did account of him -- how all saints and angels must serve him, "him hath God the Father sealed," saith John. Indeed, the stamp of divinity, of the divine image in such an excellent manner upon the man Christ, was a seal set on by God the father, signifying and confirming his approbation of his well beloved Son and of the work he was going about. Then the Son himself did give ample testimony of this. This was the subject of his preaching to the world, "I am the light and the life of men, he that believeth in me shall be saved." And therefore he may be called the Word of God, (John i.1) and the Wisdom of God, (Prov. viii.) because he hath revealed unto us the blessed mystery of wisdom concerning our salvation. He is the very expression and character of the Father's person and glory, (Heb. i.3) in his own person, and he hath revealed and expressed his Father's mind, and his own office, so fully to the world that there should be no more doubt of it. Out of the mouth of these two witnesses this word might be established, but for superabundance, behold a third, the Holy Ghost witnessing at his baptism, -- in his resurrection, -- after his ascension. The Holy Ghost signifieth his presence and consent to that work, in the similitude of a dove, the Holy Ghost testifieth it in the power that raised him from the dead, the Holy Ghost put it beyond all question when he descended upon the apostles according to Christ's promise. For the other three witnesses on earth, we shall not stay upon it, only know, that the work of the regeneration of souls by the power of the Word and Spirit signified by water, the justification of guilty souls signified by the blood of Jesus Christ, and the testimony of the Spirit in our consciences, bearing witness to our spirits, is an assured testimony of this, that Jesus Christ, in whom we believe, is "the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." The changing, pacifying, and comforting of souls in such a wonderful manner, cries aloud that he in whom the soul believes is the true and living God, whom to know is eternal life. But mark, I pray you, the accuracy of the apostle in the change of speech. "These three" witnesses on earth, saith he, "agree in one, in giving one common testimony to the Son of God and the Saviour of sinners." But as for the heavenly witnesses -- the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost, -- however they be three after an inconceivable manner, and that they do also agree in one common testimony to the Mediator of men, yet moreover they are One. They not only agree in one but are one God, -- one simple, undivided, self-being, infinite Spirit, -- holden out to us in three persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to whom be praise and glory.

Benjamin Needler

Benjamin Needler famously preached in support of the Trinity and expounded on the Comma May 25, 1656, The Trinity Proved by Scripture by Benjamin Needler [21] [22]

John Goodwin

[23]

Edward Stillingfleet

Edward Stillingfleet 1635-1699, said in his reply to Roman Catholic John Sergeant (1622-1707) in 1688 concerning scripture and the Comma:

I. We do utterly deny that it is in any Churches' Power to correct Original Texts, because they contradict the Sense of the present Church; or any Translations any farther, than they differ form the Originals. And I do not know any assertion that shakes more our Faith, as to the Scripture, than this of J.S. (John Sergeant) doth.

II. The early Appeals made to Scripture in Matters of Faith, by the Writers of the Christian Church, make us Certain that there could be no such Alterations or Corrections of the Texts, according to the sense of the Correctors. As the Instance, we find the Places produced against the Arians used before against the Samosatenians and Artemonites.

If it be said, They might correct the Fathers to I answer, that there is no imaginable Ground for any such suspicion; because the Fathers lived in distant Places and Countries, and therefore when their Testimonies agree about some places of Scripture alleged by them, there can be no Reason to suspect any Corruption or Alteration of the Text. As for Instance, no one Text of the whole New Testament, hath been more suspected than that of I S. John 5.7. There are three that bear Record in Heaven, &c. And it cannot be denied that there hath been great variety, both in the Greek and Latin Manuscripts about it; yea, there was so in S. Jeroms' time, as it appears as by his Preface to the Canonical Epistles; who charges the leaving it out to the unfaithfulness of the Translators. S. Jerom is cried out upon as a Party in this Controversie, and therefore it is said on the other side, that he put it in as favouring his own Opinion. But his Integrity is vindicated herein, because S. Cyprian so long before the Arian Controversie produced this Place. (S. Cyrpian. Ad Jubaianum. Epistle 73) So that our Certainty as to Scripture doth not depend upon the mere Letter, but upon comparing the best and most ancient Copies, with the Writings of the Fathers, who still made use of the Scriptures in all Discourses and Debates about Matters of Faith.

Edward Stillingflee 1635-1699 in A discourse concerning the nature and grounds of the certainty of faith in answer to J. S. [Sergeant, John, -- 1622-1707], his Catholick letters / by Edw. Stillingfleet London: Printed for Henry Mortlock, 1688 (p.89, 90)

John Mill

Hē Kainē Diathēkē Links to a PDF

Mills Preface, 1707, CXLVIII:

VII. Codicis N. Testamenti, recentiori & minus accurata manu descripti: qui olim fuerat fratris Froy Franciscani, postea Thomæ Clementis, deinde Gulielmi Charci, ac demum Thomæ Montfortii S. T. P. In Evangeliis habet κεφάλαια seu titulos, & sectiones Ammonianas, cum στιχομετρία, ad calcem cujusque Evangelii. Lectiones variantes manu sua, ac suorum, excerpsit Usserius, in Evangeliis, Actis Apost. (ad Cap. 22di versum 29. ubi desinit Exemplar Cant.) & Capite primo Epistolæ ad Romanos. neque enim ultra processere. Codicis cum in corpore, tum præsertim in spatio marginali plurima notavit eruditus quispiam (Gul. Charcus, ut opinor; erat enim is in Græcis insigniter versatus, ac præterea καλλιγραφώτατος, adeoque ad hæc notanda quasi genio suo incitatus.) Aliqua hîc illic delevit, quæ in Codicem hunc ex interpolato textu irrepserant:

14 lines skipped....

Textum ipsum quod spectat, magna in eo est vis lectionum plane singularium, seu hujusmodi saltem, quæ in Codd. nostris haud comparent. Tales quadraginta supra centum observatas à me olim memini. Sed & genuinæ aliquot ipsius lectiones, ab Editis nostris discrepantes, quarum haud facta est in superioribus mentio, hoc loco memorandæ sunt.”

See Also Adnotationes Millii - John Mill Author - Thomas Burgess Editor 1822. (work in progress)

Jean Hardouin

See Main Article: Johannine Comma and Jean Hardouin

Prudentius Maran

Prudentius Maran wrote Divinitas Domini Nostri Jesu Christi manifesta in scripturis et traditione: Opus in quatuor partes distributum, in quibus Christi divinitas, ... Opera et studio in 1750. It contains a section on the comma, speaking about internal issues such as style and harmony etc. When he discusses Gregory of Nazianzus he seems to emphasize the grammatical issues concering the Johannine Comma.

Sir Isaac Newton

An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture is a dissertation by the English mathematician and scholar Sir Isaac Newton. This was sent in a letter to John Locke on 14 November 1690 and built upon the textual work of Richard Simon and his own research. The text was first published in English in 1754, 27 years after his death. The account claimed to review all the textual evidence available from ancient sources on two disputed Bible passages: 1 John 5:7 and 3:16.

Newton describes this letter as "an account of what the reading has been in all ages, and what steps it has been changed, as far as I can hitherto determine by records", and "a criticism concerning a text of Scripture". He blames "the Roman church" for many abuses in the world and accuses it of "pious frauds". He adds that "the more learned and quick-sighted men. as Luther, Erasmus, Bullinger, Grotius, and some others, would not dissemble their knowledge".

Michael Joalland wrote an article entitled Isaac Newton Reads the King James Version: The Marginal Notes and Reading Marks of a Natural Philosopher.

John Gill

See Main Article: Johannine Comma and John Gill

Matthew Henry

"We are stopped in our course by the contest there is about the genuineness of v. 7. It is alleged that many old Greek manuscripts have it not. It should seem that the critics are not agreed what manuscripts have it and what not; nor do they sufficiently inform us of the integrity and value of the manuscripts they peruse...There are some rational surmises that seem to support the present text and reading."

"The seventh verse is very agreeable to the style and the theology of our apostle...Facundus acknowledges that Cyprian says that of his three it is written, Et hi tres unum sunt—and these three are one. NOW THESE ARE THE WORDS, NOT OF V. 8, BUT OF V. 7. They are not used concerning the three on earth, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; but the three in heaven, the Father, and the Word, and the Holy Ghost...If all the Greek manuscripts and ancient versions say concerning the Spirit, the water, and the blood, that in unum sunt—they agree in one, then it was not of them that Cyprian spoke, whatever variety there might be in the copies in his time, when he said it is written, unum sunt—they are one. And therefore Cyprian's words seem still to be a firm testimony to V. 7."

"It was far more easy for a transcriber, by turning away his eye, or by the obscurity of the copy, it being obliterated or defaced on the top or bottom of a page, or worn away in such materials as the ancients had to write upon, to lose and omit the passage, than for an interpolator to devise and insert it. He must be very bold and impudent who could hope to escape detection and shame; and profane too, who durst venture to make an addition to a supposed sacred book."

"I think, in the book of God,... the text is worthy of all acceptation."

Francis Turretin

Francis Turretin noted that Erasmus had located the passage in a "most ancient British codex" and that "most praiseworthy editions, the Complutensian, the Antwerp, Arias Montanus, R. Stephanus, and Walton, which have all utilized the best codices, have the phrase.

Title F. Turretini ... Compendium Theologiæ didactico-elencticæ, ex theologorum nostrorum institutionibus theologicis auctum et illustratum. ... Memoriæ juvandæ causa conscriptum a L. Riissenio. ... Cum catalogo hæreticorum tam veterum quam recentiorum una cum præcipuorum eorum dogmatum epitome ... Published 1695 Page 36

In his disputation on the three heavenly witnesses (first published 1661), François Turrettini (1623-1687) reviewed the manuscript evidence for the passage:

“Erasmus, declares that [the Comma] is found in the very ancient British Codex, which he considered so authoritative that he restored this verse, omitted from his previous editions, in the later editions, which he revised with utmost care, as he himself says.”

“Erasmus fatetur [hunc versum] extare in Codice Britannico vetustissimo, qui tantæ fuit apud ipsum authoritatis, ut versiculum istum in prioribus Editionibus omissum, in posterioribus accuratissima cura, ut ipse scribit, recognitis, restitueret. Laudatissimæ Editiones, Complutensis, Regia Antuerpiensis, Ariæ Montani, Rob. Stephani, Eliæ Hutteri, Valtoni, quæ probatissimis et vetustissimis Codicibus usæ sunt, retinent. Unde si in quibusdam desideratur, hoc fraudi et dolo malo Arianorum adscribendum est, qui textum hunc eraserunt, quia punctim transfigebat eorum hæresim; ut Hieronymus testatur.” (175 Turrettini, 1847-1848, IV:290)

• Confessionalbibliology.com

Francis Cheynell

In 1650 Francis Cheynell wrote The Divine Trinunity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ; Or the Blessed Doctrine of the Three Coessentiall Subsistents in the Eternall Godhead Without Any Confusion Or Divsion of the Distinct Subsistences, Or Multiplication of the Most Single and Entire Godhead.

Cheynell essentially gives the Middleton grammatical argument in 1650, which may well be the earliest reference to it. [24]

[25]

1662 Book of Common Prayer

WHATSOEVER is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. 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 record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

[The First Sunday after Easter. The Epistle. 1 St. John 5. 4]

John Wesley

" I would insist only on the direct words, unexplained, just as they lie in the text: "There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: And these three are one."

"As they lie in the text :" -- but here arises a question: Is that text genuine? Was it originally written by the Apostle, or inserted in later ages? Many have doubted of this; and, in particular, the great light of the Christian church, lately removed to the Church above, Bengelius, -- the most pious, the most judicious, and the most laborious, of all the modern Commentators on the New Testament. For some time he stood in doubt of its authenticity, because it is wanting in many of the ancient copies. But his doubts were removed by three considerations: (1.) That though it is wanting in many copies, yet it is found in more; and those copies of the greatest authority: -- ( 2.) That it is cited by a whole gain of ancient writers, from the time of St. John to that of Constantine. This argument is conclusive: For they could not have cited it, had it not been in the sacred canon: -- (3.) That we can easily account for its being, after that time, wanting in many copies, when we remember that Constantine's successor was a zealous Arian, who used every means to promote his bad cause, to spread Arianism throughout the empire; in particular the erasing this text out of as many copies as fell into his hands. And he so far prevailed, that the age in which he lived is commonly styled, Seculum Aranium, -- "the Arian age;" there being then only one eminent man who opposed him at the peril of his life. So that it was a proverb, Athanasius contra mundum: "Athanasius against the world."

Franz Anton Knittel

See main article: Johannine Comma and Franz Anton Knittel

Eugenios Voulgaris

See main article: Johannine Comma and Eugenios Voulgaris

Edward Gibbon

The historian Edward Gibbon (1737-1794), explains the reason for the removal of the comma:

"Of all the manuscripts now extant, above fourscore in number, some of which are more than 1200 years old, the orthodox copies of the Vatican, of the Complutensian editors, of Robert Stephens are becoming invisible; and the two manuscripts of Dublin and Berlin are unworthy to form an exception...In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the Bibles were corrected by LanFrank, Archbishop of Canterbury, and by Nicholas, a cardinal and librarian of the Roman church, secundum Ortodoxam fidem. Notwithstanding these corrections, the passage is still wanting in twenty-five Latin manuscripts, the oldest and fairest; two qualities seldom united, except in manuscripts....The three witnesses have been established in our Greek Testaments by the prudence of Erasmus; the honest bigotry of the Complutensian editors; the typographical fraud, or error, of Robert Stephens in the placing of a crotchet and the deliberate falsehood, or strange misapprehension, of Theodore Beza."Decline and fall of the Roman Empire, IV, Edward Gibbon, p. 418.

Gibbon spoke of Porson's writings:

"His structures are founded in argument, enriched with learning, and enlivened with wit, and his adversary neither deserves nor finds any quarter at his hands. The evidence of the three heavenly witnesses would now be rejected in any court of justice; but prejudice is blind, authority is deaf, and our vulgar Bibles will ever be polluted by this spurious text."

John Jortin

In 1760 John Jortin wrote The Life of Erasmus, volume 2 in which he mentions the history of the comma.

Christian Frederick Matthaei

See main article: Johannine Comma and Christian Frederick Matthaei

Christian Frederick Matthaei published SS(ancti) apostolorum septem epistolae catholicae in 1782 in which he discussed the grammatical problems caused by he omission of the Comma.

[26]

Richard Porson

Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis, in answer to his defence of the three heavenly witnesses, I John v 7.

In 1790 Richard Porson wrote Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis, in answer to his defence of the three heavenly witnesses, I John v 7..

Thomas Middleton

Thomas Fanshaw Middleton, Bishop of Calcutta, (1769-1822) wrote The doctrine of the Greek article applied to the criticism and illustration of the New Testament in which he focused upon internal evidence. Middleton was considered the authority on the Greek article by Dean John William Burgon. Middleton basically concluded that after searching the New Testament, the Septuagint and the Greek classics) for the Greek reading of verse 8 without the presence of verse 7.(much of the below information is sourced from here

Middleton speaks the Greek article in reference to 1 John 5:7 & 8. where he favorably cites some of the most hostile critics of the text such as Richard Porson and J. J. Griesbach. He begins by saying,

"Everyone knows of how much controversy this passage has been the subject and that the words which I have enclosed in brackets [the Comma.] are now pretty generally abandoned as spurious."T. F. Middleton, The Doctrine of the Greek Article, Applied to the Criticism and Illustration of the New Testament, (Cambridge, J & J. J. Deighton, 1833), p. 441.

After recommending certain works for study regarding the Comma, he said:

"The probable result will be, that he will close the examination with a firm belief that the passage is spurious;.."

He then goes on to show a grammatical problem with the end of verse 8 if verse 7 is rejected, concerning the last four Greek words of verse 8 include the neuter definite article 'το':

"...if the seventh verse had not been spurious, nothing could have been plainer than that the ΤΟ εν 7 of verse 8, referred to εν of verse 7: as the case now stands, I do not perceive the force or meaning of the Article."p. 451.

After a long and learned consideration of why this anomaly should occur when verse 7 is omitted, Middleton concludes,

"On the whole I am led to suspect, that though so much labour and critical acuteness has been bestowed on these celebrated verses, more is yet to be done, before the mystery in which they are involved can be wholly developed."p. 453.

While he stated that the reader:

"will close the examination with a firm belief that the passage is spurious."

But he does not affirm that he has come to that conclusion himself. At the begining of the section he stated:

"I do not perceive the force or meaning of the Article,"

At the end he admits that the Greek construction, with the Greek article at the end of verse 8, remains to him a mystery if verse 7 is omitted.

Charles Forster

Charles Forster (1787-1871) wrote A new plea for the authenticity of the text of the three heavenly witness; or, Porson's letters to Travis eclectically examined and the external and internal evidences for 1 John V, 7 eclectically re-surveyed /(1867) Charles Forster [27] [28] [29]

Frederick von Nolan

• Johannine Comma and Frederick von Nolan

Adam Clarke

See Main Article Johannine Comma and Adam Clarke

The reader will observe that in Nos. 2, 4, and 5, the eighth verse is put before the seventh, and that 3 and 4 have filius instead of verbum. But both these readings are united in an ancient English manuscript of my own, which contains the Bible from the beginning of Proverbs to the end of the New Testament, written on thick strong vellum, and evidently prior to most of those copies attributed to Wiclif.

For three ben that geven witnessing in heven the Fadir, the Word or Sone and the Hooly Goost, and these three ben oon. And three ben that geven witnessing in erthe, the Spirit, Water, and Blood, and these three ben oon.

Arguments against authenticity from 1808 "improved version"

In the 1808 New Testament in an improved version, upon the basis of Archbishop Newcome's new translation, which did not contain the Comma Johanneum, the editors explained their reasons for rejecting the Textus Receptus for the verse as follows:

1. This text concerning the heavenly witnesses is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century.

2. Nor in any Latin manuscript earlier than the ninth century.*^[1]

3. It is not found in any of the ancient versions.

4. It is not cited by any of the Greek ecclesiastical writers, though to prove the doctrine of the Trinity they have cited the words both before and after this text

5. It is not cited by any of the early Latin fathers, even when the subjects upon which they treat would naturally have led them to appeal to its authority.

6. It is first cited by Virgilius Tapsensis, a Latin writer of no credit, in the latter end of the fifth century, and by him it is suspected to have been forged.*^[2]

7. It has been omitted as spurious in many editions of the New Testament since the Reformation:—in the two first of Erasmus, in those of Aldus, Colinaus, Zwinglius, and lately of Griesbach.

8. It was omitted by Luther in his German version.*^[3] In the old English Bibles of Henry VIII, Edward VI, and Elizabeth, it was printed in small types, or included in brackets: but between the years 1566 and 1580 it began to be printed as it now stands; by whose authority, is not known."*^[4]

1. The Freisinger Fragments, dated from the 5th to 7th centuries, were published in 1876 by Zeigler and were not known at the time of this list of negative evidences in 1808. Similarly, the 7th-century dating of Codex Legionensis was not assigned until the 20th century.

2. The Priscillian citation was discovered and published in the latter 1800s, fully refuting this unusual conjecture of Virgilius Tapsensis forgery. And leading to new, albeit short-lived, theories of Priscillian as the verse author, as described in the article.

3. In a commentary on the Epistle in later years, Luther relates to the heavenly witnesses as scripture: "This is the testimony in heaven, which is afforded by three witnesses—is in heaven, and remaineth in heaven. This order is to be carefully noted; namely, that the witness who is last among the witnesses in heaven, is first among the witnesses on earth, and very properly... (John) appeals to a twofold testimony :the one is in heaven, the other on earth... this divine testimony is twofold. It is given partly in heaven, partly on earth: that given in heaven has three witnesses, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: the other, given on earth, has also three witnesses; namely, the spirit, the water, and the blood." Knittel pp. 93–95

4. New Testament in an improved version, upon the basis of Archbishop Newcome's new translation, 1808, London, p. 563.

Anthony Kohlmann

Anthony Kohlmann asked and answered the question, "what reason can you assign for so notable an omission in some old manuscripts?" Kohlmann pointed to homoeoteleuton and doctrinal motivations and included an analogy to another verse which some attempted to excise. Anthony Kohlmann answered as follows: :"There are several ways of accounting for that omission and among others, it may be said, 1st, that this omission happened by the neglect of some ignorant copyists, who, after having written the first words of the 7th verse 'there are three, that give testimony,' by a mistake of the eyes, skipped over the remaining part of the text, and passed on to the immediately following text, where the same words recur; for such mistakes often take place in transcribing, especially when the two verses and the two periods begin and end with the same words. Another reason of this omission is given by the author of the prologue to the seven Catholic epistles … (Vulgate Prologue section translation) … By these words he not obscurely alludes to the Marcionites or Arians, who designedly erased this verse from all the copies they could get into their hands; for they well understood that by that one testimony their cause was undone. With a like perfidy, St. Ambrose, (lib. iii de spiritu sancto cap. 10.) reproaches the Arians, who had expunged these words from the Scriptures: Because God is a Spirit, 'Which passage, says the holy doctor addressing the Arians, you so well know to be understood of the Holy Ghost, that you have erased it from the copies of your scriptures, and would to God! you had only expunged it from yours and not also from those of the church." Anthony Kohlmann, Unitarianism philosophically and theologically examined, 1821, p.173

Albert Barnes

• [30]

Thomas Belsham

Thomas Belsham in 1817 published A Calm Inquiry into the Scripture Doctrine concerning the Person of Christ; including a brief review of the controversy between Dr. Horsley, and Dr. Priestly, and a summary of the various opinions entertained by Christians upon this subject

N. Emmons, D. D.

N. Emmons, D. D. in his The Scriptural Doctrine of the Trinity not Repugnant to Sound Reason wrote:

I. I shall attempt to show what conceptions the Scripture leads us to form of THE PECULIAR MODE OF THE DIVINE EXISTENCE.

1. The Scripture leads us to conceive of God, the first and supreme Being, as existing in three distinct persons. The one living and true God exists in such a manner that there is a proper foundation in His nature to speak of Himself in the first, second, and third person, and say I, Thou, and He, meaning only Himself. There is a certain something in the Divine nature which lays a proper foundation for such a personal distinction. But what that something is can neither be described nor conceived. Here lies the whole mystery of the Trinity.

2. The Scripture represents the three persons in the sacred Trinity as absolutely equal in every Divine perfection. We find the same names, the same attributes, and the same works ascribed to each person.

3. The Scripture represents the three equally Divine persons in the Trinity as acting in a certain order in the work of redemption. Though they are absolutely equal in nature, yet in office the first person is superior to the second, and the second is superior to the third. The Son acts in subordination to the Father, and the Spirit acts in subordination to the Son and Father both.

4. The Scripture teaches us that each of the Divine persons takes His peculiar name from the peculiar office which He sustains in the economy of redemption. The first person assumes the name of Father, because He is by office the Creator or Author of all things, and especially of the human nature of Christ. The second person assumes the name of Son and Word, by virtue of His incarnation, and mediatorial conduct. The third person is called the Holy Ghost, on account of His peculiar office as Sanctifier.

5. The Scripture represents these three Divine persons as one God. This is the plain language of the text. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three in respect to their personality, and but one in respect to their nature and essence.

II. This Scriptural account of the mysterious doctrine of the sacred Trinity is NOT REPUGNANT TO THE DICTATES OF SOUND REASON.

1. The doctrine of the Trinity, as represented in Scripture, implies no contradiction. There may be, for aught we know, an incomprehensible something in the one self-existent Being which lays a proper foundation for his existing a Trinity in Unity.

2. If it implies no contradiction that the one living and true God should .exist in three persons, then this mysterious mode of the Divine existence is agreeable to the dictates of sound reason. We cannot suppose that the uncreated Being should exist in the same manner in which we and other created beings exist. And if He exists in a different manner from created beings, then His mode of existence must necessarily be mysterious. And whoever now objects against the Scripture account of the sacred Trinity would have equally objected against any other account which God could have given of His peculiar mode of existence.

3. The doctrine of the Trinity, as represented in Scripture, is no more repugnant to the dictates of sound reason than many other doctrines which all Christians believe concerning God. It is generally believed that God is a self-existent Being, or that there is no cause or ground of His existence out of Himself. But who can explain this mode of existence, or even form any clear conception of it? It is generally believed that God is constantly present in all places, or that His presence perpetually fills the whole created universe. But can we frame any clear ideas of this universal presence of the Deity? It is generally believed that God is the Creator, who has made all things out of nothing. But of that power which is able to create, or produce something out of nothing, we can form no manner of conception. This attribute of the Deity, therefore, is as really mysterious and incomprehensible in its operation as the doctrine of the Trinity.

Henry Alford

Alford, Henry. "Commentary on 1 John 5". Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary. https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hac/1-john-5.html. 1863-1878:

7.] “Johannes hic causam reddit, cur locutus fuerit non de Spiritu tantum, cujus præcipua in hoc negotio est auctoritas, verum etiam de aqua et sanguine, quia in illis etiam non exigua est testimonii fides, et ternarius numerus in testibus est perfectissimus.” Grot. For (from what has been just cited from Grot. it will be seen that “because” would be here, as so often, too strong a causal rendering for ὅτι, and that even at the risk of identifying it with γάρ, logical accuracy requires the slighter causal conjunction) those who bear witness are three ( τρεῖς εἰσιν is copula and predicate. The three are considered as living and speaking witnesses; hence the masculine form. By being three, they fulfil the requirements of the Law as to full testimony: cf. Deuteronomy 17:6; Deuteronomy 19:15; Matthew 18:16, 2 Corinthians 13:1), the Spirit, and the water, and the blood (now, the Spirit is put first: and not without reason. The Spirit is, of the three, the only living and active witness, properly speaking: besides, the water and the blood are no witnesses without Him; whereas He is independent of them, testifying both in them and out of them), and the three concur in one (contribute to one and the same result: viz. the truth that Jesus is the Christ and that we have life in Him. Corn.-a-lap.’s mistake, “in unum, ad unum, scil. Christum,” cannot have come (as Düsterd.) from a misunderstanding of the vulgate, seeing that it has “hi tres unum sunt:” but is merely an exegesis, and in the main a right one. But the words simply signify in themselves, “are in accord.” And this their one testimony is given by the purification in the water of baptism into His name, John 3:5; by the continual cleansing from all sin which we enjoy in and by His atoning blood: by the inward witness of His Spirit, which He hath given us).

The question of the genuineness of the words read in the rec. at the end of 1 John 5:7, has been discussed, as far as external grounds are concerned, in the digest; and it has been seen, that unless pure caprice is to be followed in the criticism of the sacred text, there is not the shadow of a reason for supposing them genuine. Even the supposed citations of them in early Latin Fathers have now, on closer examination, disappeared (see Digest) Something remains to be said on internal grounds, on which we have full right to enter, now that the other is secured. And on these grounds it must appear, on any fair and unprejudiced consideration, that the words are 1) alien from the context: 2) in themselves incoherent, and betraying another hand than the Apostle’s. For 1) the context, as above explained, is employed in setting forth the reality of the substance of the faith which overcomes the world, even of our eternal life in Jesus the Son of God. And this is shewn by a threefold testimony, subsisting in the revelation of the Lord Himself, and subsisting in us His people. And this testimony is the water of baptism, the blood of atonement, the Spirit of truth, concurrent in their witness to the one fact that He is the Son of God, and that we have eternal life in Him. Now between two steps of this argument,—not as a mere analogy referred to at its conclusion,—insert the words “For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one,” and who can fail to see, unless prejudice have blinded his eyes, that the context is disturbed by the introduction of an irrelevant matter? Consequently, Bengel, one of the most strenuous upholders of the words, is obliged tamely to take refuge in the transposition of 1 John 5:7-8 (which was perhaps the original form of its insertion in the vulgate; see Digest I. II. and the quotation by Vigilius), so as to bring into treatment the matter in hand, before the illustration of it is introduced. But even suppose this could be done; what kind of illustration is it? What is it to which our attention is directed? Apparently the mere fact of the triplicity of testimony: for there is not the remotest analogy between the terms in the one case and those in the other; the very order of them, differing as it does in the two cases, shews this. Is this triplicity a fact worthy of such a comparison? And then, what is the testimony in heaven? Is it borne to men? Certainly not: for God hath no man seen, as He is there: His only-begotten Son hath declared Him to us on earth, where all testimony affecting us must be borne. Is it a testimony to angels? Possibly: but quid ad rem? And then, again, what but an unworthy play on words can it be called, to adduce the ἕν εἰσιν on the one side, the essential unity of the ever blessed Godhead, and on the other the εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν, the concurrence in testifying to one fact,—as correspondent to one another? Does not this betray itself as the fancy of a patristic gloss, in the days when such analogies and comparisons were the sport of every theological writer? And 2) the very words betray themselves. ὁ πατήρ and ὁ λόγος are never combined by St. John, but always ὁ πατήρ and ὁ υἱός. The very apology of Bengel, “Verbi appellatio egregie convenit cum testimonio,” may serve to shew how utterly weak he must have felt the cause to be.

The best conclusion to the whole subject is found in the remark of Bengel himself on another occasion (cited by Lücke here), of the practice reprobated, of which he himself furnishes here so striking an instance: “male strenuos ii se præbent in bellis Domini, qui ita animum inducunt, ‘Dogmati elenchoque meo opportunus est hic textus: ergo me ipse cogam ad eum protinus pro vero habendum: eumque ipsum, et omnia quæ pro eo corradi possunt, obnixe defendam.’ Atqui veritas non eget fulcris falsis, sed se sola multo melius nititur.”

A sketch of the principal particulars of the dispute and of the books relating to it is given in Horne’s Introduction, vol. iv. pp. 355–388.

Darby

Darby's annotations on Diatribe In Locum 1 Joann v. 7, 8

Darby's annotations on Diatribe In Locum 1 Joann v. 7, 8

Darby made several notes about the Comma in Darby's annotations on Diatribe In Locum 1 Joann v. 7, 8.

[31] [32]

Robert Lewis Dabney

Dabney says:

'The oft-contested text in 1John 5:7 also furnishes us a good instance of the value of that internal evidence which the recent critics profess to discard.........The internal evidence against this excision, then, is in the following strong points:

First, if it be made, the masculine article, numeral, and particle......are made to agree directly with three neuters- an insuperable and very bald grammatical difficulty. But if the disputed words are allowed to stand, they agree directly with two masculines and one neuter noun......where, according to a well-known rule of syntax, the masculines among the group control the gender connected with them......

Second, if the excision is made, the eighth verse coming next to the sixth, gives us a very bald and awkward, and apparently meaningless, repitition of the Spirit's witness twice in immediate succession.

Third, if the excision is made, then the proposition at the end of the eighth verse [and these three agree in one], contains an unintelligible reference......"And these three agree to that (aforesaid) one,".......What is the aforesaid unity to which these three agree? If the seventh verse is excinded, there is none.....Let the seventh verse stand, and all is clear: the three earthly witnesses testify to that aforementioned unity which the Father, Word, and Spirit constitute...........

There is a coherency in the whole which presents a very strong internal evidence for the genuineness of the Received Text.'

10 years later Dabney reviews the revisors work to date on the revison (which complete revision--OT/NT the Americans subsequently rejected in favor of their own labors, resulting in the ASV of 1901). Here is what he writes re. the Comma, p. 395:

So slight were the modifications [of earlier revisors] in its [TRs] readings clearly determined by the vast collations made by the critics of the immediately preceding generation (collations embracing every one of the boasted unicals, except the Sinai MS.), that of all the important various readings only one (1 John v.7,) has been given up to excision by a unanimous consent of competent critics. (Dabney, vol. 1, beginning p. 377) is from an article dated April 1871 (S.P.R.) "The Doctrinal Various Readings of the N.T. Greek".

Dabney was prepared to allow that "unanimous consent of competent critics" had let the Comma go, whilst retaining the TR's readings in virtually every other significant place. Dabney was quite unsatisfied with the latest revision, thinking it loaded with changes for the sake of change, with little else to commend them. The spirit of innovation in the revisors was stronger than the spirit of cautious progress.

“The internal evidence against this excision, then, is in the following strong points: First, if it be made, the masculine article, numeral, and participle οι τρεις μαρτυρουντες are made to agree directly with three neuters — an insuperable and very bald grammatical difficulty. But if the disputed words are allowed to stand, they agree directly with two masculine and one neuter noun, ο πατηρ, ο λογος, και το αγιον πνευμα; where, according to a well known rule of syntax, the masculine among the group, control the gender over the neuter connected with them. Then the occurence of the masculine τρεις μαρτυρουντες agreeing with the neuters in the eighth verse, πνευμα, υδωρ, and αιμα may be accounted for by the power of attraction, so well known in Greek syntax, and by the fact that the πνευμα, the leading noun of the second group, and next to the adjectives, has just had a sepcies of masculineness superinduced upon it by it’s previous position in the masculine group.” Discussions Volume 1 Pg. 378

“If the excision is made, then the proposition at the end of the eighth verse, και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν, contains an unintelligible reference. The insuperable awkwardness of this chasim in the meaning is obscured in the Authorized English version “and these three are one”. Let a version be given which will do fair justice to the force of the definite article here, as established by the Greek idiom and the whole construction, thus: “and these three agree to that (aforesaid) one”, the argument appears. What is that aforesaid unity to which these three agree? If the seventh verse is exscinded, there is none: the το εν so clearly designated by the definite article as an object to which the reader has already been introduced, has no antecedent presence in the passage. Let the seventh verse stand, and all is clear: the three earthly witnesses testify to that aforementioned unity which the Father, Word, and Spirit constitute.” Conversations Volume 1 Pg. 378

“In Greek, the phrase “these three agree in one” is “οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν” (the three are in the one). There is a definite article that indicates that the “one” is a particular “one” that has been referred to previously in the flow of the argument. If the Comma remains, this demonstrative article has a clear antecedent. The Father, Word, and Holy Ghost are “one,” and the three earthly witnesses agree in “the one.” Without the Comma there is no clear antecedent.” (“Discussions of Robert Lewis Dabney,” The Banner of Truth Trust, 1967, by the Trinitarian Bible Society).

François Samuel R. Louis Gaussen

François Samuel R. Louis Gaussen wrote Theopneustia: the plenary inspiration of the holy Scriptures in 1841.

William Craig Brownlee

Gleanings and Hints Towards and Argument for the Authenticity of 1 John, v7.] by William Craig Brownlee 1825.

Part 1 ~ The Christian Advocate, Volume 3. Gleanings and Hints Towards and Argument for the Authenticity of 1 John, v7. by William Craig Brownlee 1825.

Part 2 ~ The Magazine of the Reformed Dutch Church (Pages 138-151)

Thomas Burgess

Thomas Burgess wrote A Vindication of 1st John v. 7 from the Objections of M. Griesbach.

Thomas Burgess wrote A Vindication of 1st John v. 7 from the Objections of M. Griesbach

Burgess

Ben David

Ben David wrote on the Comma in 1826 in The Monthly Repository of Theology and General Literature, Volume 21 “Ben David” was actually a unitarian minister named John Jones. in his Three Letters Addressed to the Editor of The Quarterly Review, in which is Demonstrated the Genuineness of the Three Heavenly Witnesses – I John v. 7 says:

Theodorus, the master of Chrysostom and a contemporary of the emperor Julian, as we learn from Suidas, wrote “A Treatise on one God in the Trinity, from the Epistle of John the Evangelist” Eis ten Epistolen Ioannou tou Euaggelistou peri tou eis Theos en Triadi. This is a remarkable testimony, as it implies the existence and notoriety of the verse about the middle of the fourth century. At that period, a writer of celebrity erects upon it the doctrine of a trinity in unity; which surely he would hardly have done, if any suspicion of its authenticity had been entertained by him, or by any other person of that age. Besides, the turn of the expression, as it supposes what was grounded on the verse to be grounded also on the whole Epistle, supposes the Epistle and the verse, in respect to their purport and authenticity, to stand exactly on the same foundation. (See Suidas on the word Diodoros.)

Georg Friedrich Seiler

Georg Friedrich Seiler published Biblical Hermeneutics, Or, The Art of Scripture Interpretation in 1835.

George Leo Haydock

George Leo Haydock in 1849 said:

There are three that give testimony in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one: i.e. one in nature, in substance, and in all perfections, in the same sense as when Christ himself said, (John x. 30.) I and the Father are one, or one thing. The Socinians object that this verse is wanting in many Greek manuscripts; and even Erasmus in one edition, and Mr. Simon in his Critics, have questioned it, or rejected it, as a false reading, but without any sufficient proofs and grounds, as hath been shown by many learned Catholics, and also by Protestant writers, who receive in their translations this verse as canonical. It is easy to account for the omission of this verse; for as both the seventh and eighth verse begin and end with the same words, this gave occasion to the oversight and omission of the transcribers, whereas it is not credible that such a whole verse could be added. And that it was only by the mistake and oversight of transcribers may further appear, because we find part of the seventh verse, to wit, and these three are one, cited by Tertullian, lib. contra Praxeam. chap. xxiii. p. 515. Ed. Rig. and twice by St. Cyprian, Epist. 73. ad Jubaianum. p. 125. Ed. Rig. in the Oxford Edition, p. 310. and in his Treatise de Unit. Ecclesiæ, p. 181. Ed. Rigal. and in the Oxford Ed. p. 79, where also Dr. Fell defends this verse of St. John to be genuine. Tertullian and St. Cyprian wrote long before the dispute with the Arians. The Socinians also object that this passage is not brought by St. Athanasius and some other fathers against the Arians, which they could scarce have omitted had they read this verse, but this only proves that this omission had happened in some manuscripts in their time, or, as some conjecture, that the Arians had corrupted some copies. St. Fulgent us made use of it against the Arians, and also others about that time. See the Benedictines of St. Maur against Mr. Simon, in the first tome of St. Jerome, p. 1670. Both Catholics and Protestants, after a diligent examination, have received this verse, which is found in the best manuscripts. See Greek Testament at Amsterdam, in the year 1711. The three divine Persons, who are present everywhere, though said to be in heaven, gave testimony concerning Christ. The Father by a voice from heaven, both at his baptism (Matthew iii. 17.) and at his transfiguration, (Matthew xvii. 5.) saying: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him: "and also by all the miracles wrought by the same power of all the three divine Persons. 2. The Son testified to the Jews on many occasions, that he was sent from God, that he was the only Son of God, that he and his Father were one as in the annotations on John iii. The Holy Spirit confirmed the same, particularly by coming down upon the disciples on the day of Pentecost, and inspiring them to teach the same doctrine concerning Jesus Christ. (Witham) An express proof of the three distinct persons and unity of nature and essence in the blessed Trinity.

F. H. A. Scrivener

The Comma appears in most Latin manuscripts, which are broadly classified into two groups: The Latin Vulgate & The Old Latin. The Latin Vulgate, translate by Jerome, is the more common Latin translation as it was commissioned by the Catholic church in the late 4th century. The Old Latin is a term used to describe the various Latin translations that existed before the Latin Vulgate. Old Latin translations were made since about the latter half of the 2nd century - KJV Today

F. H. A. Scrivener said:

“We need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by St. John: that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 8: that from the Latin they crept into two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the printed Greek text, a place to which they had no rightful claim.”

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).

Scrivener was no friend of the Comma, and said:

“On the whole, therefore, we need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by St. John: that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 8: that from the Latin they crept into two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the printed Greek text, a place to which they had no rightful claim.”

Scrivener concluded:

“to maintain the genuineness of this passage is simply impossible.”

C. H. Spurgeon

C. H. Spurgeon in his The Three Witnesses said:

Christianity puts forth very lofty claims. She claims to be the true faith, and the only true one. She avows her teachings to be Divine, and therefore infallible; while for her great Teacher, the Son of God, she demands Divine worship, and the unreserved confidence and obedience of men. Now, to justify such high claims, the gospel ought to produce strong evidence, and it does so. The armoury of external evidences is well stored with weapons of proof. The gospel also bears within itself its own evidence, it has a self-proving power. It is so pure, so holy, so altogether above the inventive capacity of fallen man, that it must be of God. But neither with these external or internal evidences have we to do now, but I call your attention to the three witnesses which are spoken of in the text, three great witnesses still among us, whose evidence proves the truth of our religion, the Divinity of our Lord, and the future supremacy of the faith.

I. OUR LORD HIMSELF WAS ATTESTED BY THESE THREE WITNESSES. If you will carefully read in the twenty ninth chapter of the Book of Exodus, or in the eighth chapter of the Book of Leviticus, you will see that every priest came by the anointing Spirit, by water, and by blood, as a matter of type, and if Jesus Christ be indeed the priest that was for to come, He will be known by these three signs. Godly men in the olden times also well understood that there was no putting away of sin except with these three things; in proof of which we will quote David's prayer, "Purge me with hyssop" — that is, the hyssop dipped in blood — "and I shall be clean; wash me" — there is the water — "and I shall be whiter than snow"; and then, "Restore unto me the joy of Thy salvation, and uphold me with Thy free Spirit." Thus the blood, the water, and the Spirit were recognised of old as necessary to cleanse from guilt, and if Jesus of Nazareth be indeed able to save His people from their sins, He must come with the triple gift — the Spirit, the water, and the blood. Now it was evidently so. Our Lord was attested by the Spirit. The Spirit of God bore witness to Christ in the types and prophecies, "Holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"; and Jesus Christ answers to those prophecies. The Spirit abode with our Lord all His life long, and to crown all, after He had died and risen again, the Holy Ghost gave the fullest witness by descending in full power upon the disciples at Pentecost. It is also manifest that our Lord came with water too. He came not by the water merely as a symbol, but by that which the water meant, by unsullied purity of life. With Jesus also was the blood. This distinguished Him from John the Baptist, who came by water, but Jesus came "not by water only, but by water and blood." We must not prefer any one of the three witnesses to another, but what a wonderful testimony to Christ was the blood! From the very first He came with blood, for John the Baptist cried, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world!" In His ministry there was often a clear testimony to His future sufferings and shedding of blood, for to the assembled crowd He said, "Except a man eat My flesh and drink My blood, there is no life in him"; while to His disciples He spake of the decease which He should shortly accomplish at Jerusalem. However pure the life He led, had He never died He could not have been the Saviour appointed to bear the iniquity of us all. The blood was needed to complete the witness. The blood must flow with the water, the suffering with the serving.

II. THESE THREE REMAIN AS STANDING WITNESSES TO HIM TO ALL TIME. And first, the Holy Spirit is witness at this hour that the religion of Jesus is the truth, and that Jesus is the Son of God. By His Divine energy He convinces men of the truth of the gospel; and these so convinced are not only persons who, through their education, are likely to believe it, but men like Saul of Tarsus, who abhor the whole thing. He pours His influences upon men, and infidelity melts away like the iceberg in the Gulf Stream; He touches the indifferent and careless, and they repent, believe, and obey the Saviour. Then, too, the Spirit goes forth among believers, and by them He bears witness to our Lord and His gospel. How mightily does He comfort the saints! And He does the same when He gives them guidance, enlightenment, and elevation of soul. The next abiding witness in the Church is the water — not the water of baptism, but the new life implanted in Christians, for that is the sense in which John's Master had used the word "water": "The water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life." The world's conscience knows that the religion of Jesus is the religion of purity, and if professed Christians fall into uncleanness the world knows that such a course of action does not arise out of the religion of Christ, but is diametrically opposite to it. The gospel is perfect, and did we wholly yield to its sway sin would be abhorred by us, and slain in us, and we should live on earth the life of the perfect ones above. The third abiding witness is the blood. The blood of Christ is still on the earth, for when Jesus bled it fell upon the ground and was never gathered up. O earth, thou still art bespattered with the blood of the murdered Son of God, and if thou dost reject Him this will curse thee. But, O humanity, thou art blessed with the drops of that precious blood, and believing in Him it doth save thee. The blood of Jesus, after speaking peace to the conscience, inflames the heart with fervent love, and full often leads men to high deeds of consecration, self-denial, and self-sacrifice, such as can scarce be understood till they are traced back to that amazing love which bled upon the tree.

III. THIS TRIPLE YET UNITED WITNESS IS PECULIARLY FORCIBLE WITHIN BELIEVING HEARTS. John tells us, "He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself." Now, these three witnesses bear testimony in our souls abidingly. I speak not of years ago, but of last night, when you prayed, and were heard. Did not the Spirit when He helped you to pray, bear witness that the gospel was no lie? Was not the answer to your prayer good evidence? The next witness in us is the water, or the new and pure life. Do you feel the inner life? You are conscious that you are not what you used to be, you are conscious of a new life within your soul which you never knew till the date of your conversion, and that new life within you is the living and incorruptible seed which liveth and abideth forever. Witnessing within us is also the blood. This is a witness which never fails, speaking in us better things than the blood of Abel. It gives us such peace that we can sweetly live and calmly die. It gives us such access to God that sometimes when we have felt its power we have drawn as near to our Father as if we had seen Him face to face. And oh, what safety the blood causes us to enjoy! We feel that we cannot perish while the crimson canopy of atonement by blood hangs over our head. Thus I have tried to show that these three witnesses testify in our souls; I beg you now to notice their order. The Spirit of God first enters the heart, perhaps long before the man knows that such is the case; the Spirit creates the new life, which repents and seeks the Saviour, that is the water; and that new life flies to the blood of Jesus and obtains peace. Having observed their order, now note their combination. "These three agree in one," therefore every true believer should have the witness of each one, and if each one does not witness in due time, there is cause for grave suspicion,

IV. THESE WITNESSES CERTIFY TO US THE ULTIMATE TRIUMPH OF OUR RELIGION. Is the Spirit working through the gospel? then the gospel will win the day, because the Spirit of God is almighty, and complete master over the realm of mind. He has the power to illuminate the intellect, to win the affections, to curb the will, and change the entire nature of man, for He worketh all things after His own pleasure, and, like the wind, He "bloweth where He listeth." Next, the gospel must conquer, because of the water, which I have explained to be the new life of purity. What says John? "Whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world." It is impossible for the gospel to be vanquished so long as there remains in the world one soul that is born of God. Living and incorruptible seed abideth forever! Lastly, the gospel must spread and conquer because of the blood. God, the everlasting Father, has promised to Jesus by covenant, of which the blood is the seal, that He "shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand." As surely as Christ died on the Cross, He must sit on a universal throne.

Wordsworth

In 1862, Christopher Wordsworth published The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ: In the original Greek. With introd. and notes by Christopher Wordsworth, Volume 4 which has two pages about the Johannine Comma.

William Orme

In 1865, Nichols and Noyes published the 1830s document by William Orme: Memoir of the Controversy Respecting the Three Heavenly Witnesses, I John V. It was reprinted and by Ezra Abbott with additional notes and an appendix.

1873 Cambridge Paragraph Bible

The 1873 Cambridge Paragraph Bible puts the Comma in italics

The 1873 Cambridge Paragraph Bible, which is found in the New Testament Octapla, and which is the base text of the Zondervan KJV Study Bible and many of their other recent KJVs, throws the words in question into italics. This is reflected in the detail below from the original edition of CPB, 1873; by the New Testament Octapla's reproduction of Scrivener's CPB text, and by Scrivener’s book The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives which verifies that this was a deliberate change that Scrivener made on his own authority:

“The portion of i John v. 7, 8 which is now for the first time set in italics in the Cambridge Paragraph Bible, is probably no longer regarded as genuine by any one who is capable of forming an independent judgment on the state of the evidence.” (Cambridge, 1884, p. 69)

The Zondervan reprints, however, silently reverse Scrivener's decision and put the words back into regular type. The prefaces to these reprints give no indication regarding this change, although other changes regarding spelling are acknowledged.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

7. three—Two or three witnesses were required by law to constitute adequate testimony. The only Greek manuscripts in any form which support the words, "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one; and there are three that bear witness in earth," are the Montfortianus of Dublin, copied evidently from the modern Latin Vulgate; the Ravianus, copied from the Complutensian Polyglot; a manuscript at Naples, with the words added in the Margin by a recent hand; Ottobonianus, 298, of the fifteenth century, the Greek of which is a mere translation of the accompanying Latin. All the old versions omit the words. The oldest manuscripts of the Vulgate omit them: the earliest Vulgate manuscript which has them being Wizanburgensis, 99, of the eighth century. A scholium quoted in Matthæi, shows that the words did not arise from fraud; for in the words, in all Greek manuscripts "there are three that bear record," as the Scholiast notices, the word "three" is masculine, because the three things (the Spirit, the water, and the blood) are SYMBOLS OF THE Trinity. To this Cyprian, 196, also refers, "Of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, it is written, 'And these three are one' (a unity)." There must be some mystical truth implied in using "three" (Greek) in the masculine, though the antecedents, "Spirit, water, and blood," are neuter. That THE Trinity was the truth meant is a natural inference: the triad specified pointing to a still Higher Trinity; as is plain also from 1Jo 5:9, "the witness of God," referring to the Trinity alluded to in the Spirit, water, and blood. It was therefore first written as a marginal comment to complete the sense of the text, and then, as early at least as the eighth century, was introduced into the text of the Latin Vulgate. The testimony, however, could only be borne on earth to men, not in heaven. The marginal comment, therefore, that inserted "in heaven," was inappropriate. It is on earth that the context evidently requires the witness of the three, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, to be borne: mystically setting forth the divine triune witnesses, the Father, the Spirit, and the Son. Luecke notices as internal evidence against the words, John never uses "the Father" and "the Word" as correlates, but, like other New Testament writers, associates "the Son" with "the Father," and always refers "the Word" to "God" as its correlate, not "the Father." Vigilius, at the end of the fifth century, is the first who quotes the disputed words as in the text; but no Greek manuscript earlier than the fifteenth is extant with them. The term "Trinity" occurs first in the third century in Tertullian [Against Praxeas, 3].

A Commentary, Critical, Practical, and Explanatory on the Old and New Testaments by Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown (1882)

Ezra Abbott

See Main Article: Johannine Comma and Ezra Abbott

Revised Version 1881

Johannine Comma in the KJV and RV in 1881

The 1881 Revised Version omits the comma:

1 John 5:6-8 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. 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. (King James)

1 John 5:6-8 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. 7 And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 8 For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one. (English Revised)

Charles Taze Russell

Charles Taze Russell, a neo-Arian and Adventist founder of the infamous cult the Jehovah's witnesses, in 1899 made his accusation specific and the forgery late:

"the spurious words were no doubt interpolated by some over-zealous monk, who felt sure of the (Trinity) doctrine himself, and thought that the holy spirit had blundered in not stating the matter in the Scriptures: his intention, no doubt, was to help God and the truth out of a difficulty by perpetrating a fraud."^{Charles Taze Russell The Fact and Philophy of the Atonement, 1899, p. 61.}

Martin R. Vincent

There are three that bear record (τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες).

Lit., three are the witnessing ones.

The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.

These words are rejected by the general verdict of critical authorities. For the details of the memorable controversy on the passage, the student may consult Frederick Henry Scrivener, "Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament;" Samuel P. Tregelles, "An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament;" John Selby Watson, "The Life of Richard Porson, M.A.;" Professor Ezra Abbot, "Orme's Memoir of the Controversy on 1 John 5:7;" Charles Foster, "A New Plea for the Authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses," or "Porson's Letters to Travis Eclectically Examined," Cambridge, 1867. On the last-named work, Scrivener remarks, "I would fain call it a success if I could with truth. To rebut much of Porson's insolent sophistry was easy, to maintain the genuineness of this passage is simply impossible." Tregelles gives a list of more than fifty volumes, pamphlets, or critical notices on this question. Porson, in the conclusion of his letters to Travis, says: "In short, if this verse be really genuine, notwithstanding its absence from all the visible Greek manuscripts except two (that of Dublin and the forged one found at Berlin), one of which awkwardly translates the verse from the Latin, and the other transcribes it from a printed book; notwithstanding its absence from all the versions except the Vulgate, even from many of the best and oldest manuscripts of the Vulgate; notwithstanding the deep and dead silence of all the Greek writers down to the thirteenth, and of most of the Latins down to the middle of the eighth century; if, in spite of all these objections, it be still genuine, no part of Scripture whatsoever can be proved either spurious or genuine; and Satan has been permitted for many centuries miraculously to banish the 'finest passage in the New Testament,' as Martin calls it, from the eyes and memories of almost all the Christian authors, translators, and transcribers."

Antoniades 1904/1912 Patriarchal Edition

The Greek Orthodox of Antoniades (1904/1912) in its original printing contined the Comma Johannium in small and italicized type. This would indicate its absence from modern collections of Greek manuscripts of 1 John. Antoniades clearly explains the issue in his Greek preface:

"...the passage on the 'three witnesses' in 1 John 5:7,8. It did not appear possible to include this, either by the principles of this present [official Orthodox] edition or by way of exception, since it is entirely unattested in church texts, in the fathers and teachers of the Eastern Church, in the ancient versions, in the older MSS of the Slavic version, or even in the Latin, or in any known Greek MS written independently of this addition, which was introduced gradually into the Vulgate. It is retained [solely] upon the opinion of the Holy Synod." ^{(p.7. of the Greek New Testament of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople English translation by J. M. Rife in Colwell's Prolegomena to the Study of the Lectionary Text, p.61; emphasis added)}

In the Greek Orthodox tradition, earlier translations into Modern Greek by Maximus Callipolites, printed in 1638 for Cyrillus Lucaris, and by Neophytus Vamvas completed in 1850, include the Comma in the text.

Καραβιδόπουλος Δ. Ιωάννης, Βιβλικές Μελέτες Γ΄ (Βιβλική Βιβλιοθήκη #28), Πουρναράς, Θεσσαλονίκη 2004, σελ. 324:

"Το χωρίον τούτο, σημειώνει η επιτροπή, ου μόνον κατά τας βάσεις της παρούσης εκδόσεως, αλλ' ουδέ κατ' εξαίρεση εφαίνετο εγχωρούν, ως όλως αμάρτυρον από των εκκλησιαστικών κειμένων, από των πατέρων και διδασκάλων της Ανατολικής Εκκλησίας, από των αρχαίων μεταφράσεων, από των αρχαιοτέρων απογράφων της Σλαυϊκής μεταφράσεως, και αυτής έτι της Λατινικής, και από πάντων των γνωστών ελληνικών χειρογράφων, των γεγραμμένων ανεξαρτήτως της κατά μικρόν εισαχθείσης εις την Βουλγάταν προσθήκης. Διαιρείται κατά γνώμην της Ιεράς Συνόδου". [33]

A. T. Robinson

A. T. Robertson on 1 John 5:7:

7. For there are three who bear witness (hoti treis eisin hoi marturoountes). At this point the Latin Vulgate gives the words in the Textus Receptus, found in no Greek MS. save two late cursives (162 in the Vatican Library of the fifteenth century, 34 of the sixteenth century in Trinity College, Dublin). Jerome did not have it. Cyprian applies the language of the Trinity and Priscillian has it. Erasmus did not have it in his first edition, but rashly offered to insert it if a single Greek S. had it and 34 was produced with the insertion, as if made to order. The spurious addition is: en toi ouranoi ho pater, ho logos kai to hagion pneuma kai houtoi hoi treis hen eisin kai treis eisin hoi marturountes en tei gei (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth). The last clause belongs to verse 8. The fact and the doctrine of the Trinity do not depend on this spurious addition. Some Latin scribe caught up Cyprian's exegesis and wrote it on the margin of his text, and so it got into the Vulgate and finally into the Textus Receptus by the stupidity of Erasmus. Archibald Thomas Robertson (Word Pictures in the New Testament, Volume VI, Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933, page 240)

Monsignor Knox

English Roman Catholic Bible scholar Monsignor Knox wrote in a footnote in his 1944 translation:

"This verse does not occur in any good Greek manuscript. But the Latin versions may have preserved the true text".

Franz Pieper

Also those asserting authenticity of the Comma, followed by omission, often assert that the early church writers and internal evidences are undervalued by today's textual theories. Franz Pieper is an example from 20th-century scholarship. For Pieper the Cyprian citation is a key element leading to his acceptance of authenticity. Pieper disagrees with the Karl Ströbel claim, (Zeitschrift, 1854, p.135-137) that the old codices must be the judge in textual criticism (given in Ströbel's review of the Sander book). Pieper says "a quotation from the Fathers is often of decisive importance".Christian Dogmatics, 1950, p. 241, trans. from German ed. c.1920.

F.F. Bruce

F.F. Bruce claims of how the comma had been errantly added to Erasmus' Greek text in his History of the English Bible, Third Edition, New York: Oxford University Press, 1978, pages 141-142:

The words ["in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth."] omitted in the R.V. [Revised Version, 1881] were no part of the original Greek text, nor yet of the Latin Vulgate in its earliest form. They first appear in the writings of a Spanish Christian leader named Priscillian, who was executed for heresy in A.D. 385. Later they made their way into copies of the Latin text of the Bible. When Erasmus prepared his printed edition of the Greek New Testament, he rightly left those words out, but was attacked for this by people who felt that the passage was a valuable proof-text for the doctrine of the Trinity. He replied (rather incautiously) that if he could be shown any Greek manuscript which contained the words, he would include them in his next edition. Unfortunately, a Greek manuscript not more than some twenty years old was produced in which the words appeared: they had been translated into Greek from Latin. Of course, the fact that the only Greek manuscript exhibiting the words belonged to the sixteenth century was in itself an argument against their authenticity, but Erasmus had given his promise, and so in his 1522 edition he included the passage. (To-day one or two other very late Greek manuscripts are known to contain this passages; all others omit it.)

UBS Greek Editions

Many critical text proponants erroneously assert that this text originated close to the time of Erasmus. However, even the UBS Greek NT (4th ed.) notes that the Comma Johanneum is attested by the Latin church fathers (Cyprian) (d. 258), (Pseudo-Cyprian) (4th century), (Priscillian) (d. 385), the Speculum (5th century), Varimadum (UBS date "445/480"), Pseudo-Vigilius (4th or 5th century), and Fulgentius (d. 533), as well as a few manuscripts.

Edward F. Hills

See main article Johannine Comma and Edward F. Hills

Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones

"As of 1997, the following cursive manuscripts are known to include the passage: 34, 88 (margin) 99, 105, 110, 162, 173, 181, 190, 193, 219, 220, 221, 298, 429, 629 (margin) 635*, 636, and 918. Thus the list of Greek mss known to contain the "Comma" is not long, but it is longer (and growing) than many of us would have believed. It was part of the text of a 2nd century Old Latin Bible. It is found in "r", a 5th century Old Latin manuscript, and in a confession of faith drawn up by Eusebius, Bishop of Carthage, in 484."^[3]

• 635 is a Metzger error and should be removed from this list.

Scofield

Nova Vulgata

In the Roman Catholic tradition, the Latin Nova Vulgata (New Vulgate), published in 1979 following the Second Vatican Council, based on the Critical Text and approved for liturgical use, does not include the Comma.Nova Vulgata, Epistula I Ioannis. The Nova Vulgata has not been translated into English. Nor does the English-language New American Bible. Today there are Bible translations with a Roman Catholic church imprimatur both with and without the verse, as the traditional Rheims New Testament and the Ronald Knox translation of the Vulgate include the verse.

New King James Version

Unlike many modern versions the New King James Version does contain the verse, but contains the marginal footnote:

NU-Text and M-Text omit the words from in heaven (verse 7) through on earth (verse 8). Only four or five very late manuscripts contain these words in Greek.

The NKJV casts doubt over the verse.

The 1979 NKJV reads 'who bear witness in heaven,' not 'that bear witness in heaven'.

Arthur Farstad

Dr. Arthur Farstad, who served as General Editor of the New King James Version (1982) and co-editor of The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text believed the Comma was not part of the original text:

Dr. Arthur Farstad: The Trinitarian controversy with the Arian heretics, they would have adored this verse if it had been in their text. It would be a clear verse for the Trinity and they never once mentioned it. So if they had had it, you can see…

Ankerberg: So the first councils back there in the 300s or 400s would have loved this verse.

Farstad: They would have adored it. And, you know, we believe in the Trinity.

Ankerberg: But they didn’t quote it.

Farstad: They didn’t quote it because they didn’t have it. It showed up first in the Latin and then years later it was put in the margin.

(Excerpted from The John Ankerberg Show series entitled: “Which English Translation of the Bible is Best for Christians to Use Today?”)

Farstad was ignorant of the early church witnesses.

Bruce Metzger

See Main Article: Jonannine Comma and Bruce Metzger

H.J. de Jonge

A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7,8, by Michael Maynard

In A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7,8, Michael Maynard records that H.J. de Jonge, the Dean of the Faculty of Theology at Rijksuniversiteit (Leiden, Netherlands), a recognized specialist in Erasmian studies, refuted the myth of a promise in 1980, stating that Metzger's view on Erasmus' promise "has no foundation in Erasmus' work. Consequently it is highly improbable that he included the difficult passage because he considered himself bound by any such promise."

In a letter of June 13, 1995, to Maynard, de Jonge wrote:

"I have checked again Erasmus' words quoted by Erika Rummel and her comments on them in her book Erasmus' Annotations. This is what Erasmus writes [on] in his Liber tertius quo respondet ... Ed. Lei: Erasmus first records that Lee had reproached him with neglect of the MSS. of 1 John because Erasmus (according to Lee) had consulted only one MS. Erasmus replies that he had certainly not used only one ms., but many copies, first in England, then in Brabant, and finally at Basle. He cannot accept, therefore, Lee's reproach of negligence and impiety. 'Is it negligence and impiety, if I did not consult manuscripts which were simply not within my reach? I have at least assembled whatever I could assemble. Let Lee produce a Greek MS. which contains what my edition does not contain and let him show that that manuscript was within my reach. Only then can he reproach me with negligence in sacred matters.'

"From this passage you can see that Erasmus does not challenge Lee to produce a manuscript etc. What Erasmus argues is that Lee may only reproach Erasmus with negligence of MSS if he demonstrates that Erasmus could have consulted any MS. in which the Comma Johanneum figured. Erasmus does not at all ask for a MS. containing the Comma Johanneum. He denies Lee the right to call him negligent and impious if the latter does not prove that Erasmus neglected a manuscript to which he had access.

"In short, Rummel's interpretation is simply wrong. The passage she quotes has nothing to do with a challenge. Also, she cuts the quotation short, so that the real sense of the passage becomes unrecognizable. She is absolutely not justified in speaking of a challenge in this case or in the case of any other passage on the subject" (emphasis in original) (de Jonge, cited from A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7,8, Michael Maynard, p. 383).

David Cloud

David Cloud said:

The first myth is that Erasmus promised to insert the verse if a Greek manuscript were produced. This is stated as follows by Bruce Metzger: “Erasmus promised that he would insert the Comma Johanneum, as it is called, in future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a copy was found--or made to order” (Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 1st and 2nd editions).

The second myth is that Erasmus challenged Edward Lee to find a Greek manuscript that included 1 John 5:7. This originated with Erika Rummel in 1986 in her book Erasmus’ Annotations and was repeated by James White in 1995 (The Truth about the KJV-Only Controversy).

In A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7,8, Michael Maynard records that H.J. de Jonge, the Dean of the Faculty of Theology at Rijksuniversiteit (Leiden, Netherlands), has refuted both myths. de Jonge, a recognized specialist in Erasmian studies, refuted the myth of a promise in 1980, stating that Metzger’s view on Erasmus’ promise “has no foundation in Erasmus’ work. Consequently it is highly improbable that he included the difficult passage because he considered himself bound by any such promise.” He has also refuted the new myth of a challenge (which Rummel devised in reaction to the burial of the promise myth). In a letter of June 13, 1995, to Maynard, de Jonge wrote:

I have checked again Erasmus’ words quoted by Erika Rummel and her comments on them in her book Erasmus’ Annotations. This is what Erasmus writes [on] in his Liber tertius quo respondet ... Ed. Lei: Erasmus first records that Lee had reproached him with neglect of the MSS. of 1 John because Er. (according to Lee) had consulted only one MS. Erasmus replies that he had certainly not used only one ms., but many copies, first in England, then in Brabant, and finally at Basle. He cannot accept, therefore, Lee’s reproach of negligence and impiety.

‘Is it negligence and impiety, if I did not consult manuscripts which were simply not within my reach? I have at least assembled whatever I could assemble. Let Lee produce a Greek MS. which contains what my edition does not contain and let him show that that manuscript was within my reach. Only then can he reproach me with negligence in sacred matters.’

From this passage you can see that Erasmus does not challenge Lee to produce a manuscript etc. What Erasmus argues is that Lee may only reproach Erasmus with negligence of MSS if he demonstrates that Erasmus could have consulted any MS. in which the Comma Johanneum figured. Erasmus does not at all ask for a MS. containing the Comma Johanneum. He denies Lee the right to call him negligent and impious if the latter does not prove that Erasmus neglected a manuscript to which he had access.

In short, Rummel’s interpretation is simply wrong. The passage she quotes has nothing to do with a challenge. Also, she cuts the quotation short, so that the real sense of the passage becomes unrecognizable. She is absolutely not justified in speaking of a challenge in this case or in the case of any other passage on the subject (emphasis in original) (de Jonge, cited from Maynard, p. 383).

Jeffrey Khoo observes further: “Yale professor Roland Bainton, another Erasmian expert, agrees with de Jonge, furnishing proof from Erasmus’ own writing that Erasmus’ inclusion of 1 John 5:7f was not due to a so-called ‘promise’ but the fact that he believed ‘the verse was in the Vulgate and must therefore have been in the Greek text used by Jerome’” (Jeffrey Khoo, Kept Pure in All Ages, 2001, p. 88).

Edward F. Hills, who had a doctorate in textual criticism from Harvard, testifies: “...it was not trickery that was responsible for the inclusion of the Johannine Comma in the Textus Receptus, but the usage of the Latin speaking Church” (Hills, The King James Version Defended).

In the 3rd edition of The Text of the New Testament Bruce Metzger corrected his false assertion about Erasmus as follows: “What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus’ promise to include the Comma Johanneum if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent suspicion that MS 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H. J. DeJonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion” (Metzger, The Text of The New Testament, 3rd edition, p. 291, footnote 2). The problem is that this myth continues to be paraded as truth by modern version defenders.

A Defense of 1 John 5:7

Daniel Wallace

Daniel Wallace said on the John Ankerberg Show:

"..this is a verse that was added to the bible in 1522.."

Yet, 1514 the Complutensian Polyglot, which was printed in Spain and written from many unknown Greek manuscripts, contains the verse. Wallace mentions a conspiracy theory about Erasmus and how he inserted the verse into the text due to "church pressure." His conspiracy fails when one breifly looks at the Complutensian manuscripts. In 450 AD, Jerome cites it in his epistle to Eustochium and wants to know why it was excluded.

Amazingly, Wallace in an article at bible.org, denies that Cyprian is actually quoting the Comma. To support this, Wallace must assume that for Cyprian, "the three witnesses [in KJV's v. 8] refer to the Trinity." How "the Spirit, and the water, and the blood" can be matched convincingly with Cyprian's "the Father...the Son, and...the Holy Spirit" does not immediately appear; Wallace is reduced to asserting that "Apparently, he was prompted to read such into the text here because of the heresies he was fighting (a common indulgence of the early patristic writers)." However, while Wallace makes allowances for this "common indulgence" of the church fathers, he afterwards asserts that "One would expect [Cyprian] to quote the exact wording of the text, if its meaning were plain"--not allowing the similarly common indulgences of paraphrase and loose citation to Cyprian where they are inconvenient to his argument.

Wallace avoids the point that Cyprian said, “it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one.’” He also ignores the fact that Fulgentius Ruspensis, who lived in the 6th century and who directly quoted from the Comma word for word, quoted Cyprian’s quotation of it! Also, the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, openly states that Cyprian quoted from the Comma. In the footnotes of 1 John 5:7, the UBS Greek Text lists Cyprian as the first on its list of church fathers who quoted the Comma ("The Greek New Testament", (Stuttgart: Bibelgesellschaft, 2010), p. 819.). The conclusion is that despite Wallace's anti Textus Receptus bias, Cyprian really did quote from the Comma, as many other scholars can honestly admit.

Wallace says that Bart D. Ehrman, upon examination, states that Christian views of inerrancy and our theological convictions should be shaken due to the inauthenticity of texts such as the Comma.Daniel B. Wallace, “The Gospel According To Bart: A Review Article Of Misquoting Jesus By Bart Ehrman, JETS 49, no. 2 (2006): 335. From M.T.S. Thesis 1 John 5:6-12 and the Comma Johanneum by Rev. David Haitel

Jan Krans

Under the heading in Beyond What is Written – 2.2 page 43 The Principle of the Harder Reading it states:

1 John 5:7-8: the Johannine Comma (1528); ⁶² however, it is perhaps not so much the principle of the harder reading that is involved when Erasmus remarks that none of the orthodox Greek commentators use this text to defend the orthodox dogma of the trinity against the Arians, nor felt the need to adjust their text. A text without the Johannine Comma is not necessarily 'harder'; it is the striking absence of references to it in Greek sources that simply cannot be explained away.

62 Apolog. adv. monach. hisp., LB IX, c. 1030 C-E. Erasmus' treatment of this problem is used as an example by Bentley, 'Erasmus and Le Clerc', pp. 314-315.

On Page 218 it has the footnote:

28 See the list of Stephanus' manuscripts in appendix II. Isaac Newton shows how such an uncritical use of Stephanus' edition led Beza to assume that the Johannine Comma is actually found in a number of manuscripts (Correspondence 3, no. 358; p. 99).

In Chapter 9.6, Beza As Editor of the New Testament, on page 242, it has:

It does not seem useful or necessary to assume that Beza wilfully distorted text-critical facts. Text-critical naivete and lack of method and standards are better explanations, especially when it is realised that Beza's true interests had little to do with textual criticism. A good example is found in Beza's way of dealing with the Jobannine Comma. When discussing the fate of 1 John 5:7-8, Edward Gibbon writes that Beza retained the Comma by "deliberate falsehood, or strange misapprehension". ¹¹⁷ From Beza's annotation it appears that at 1 John 5:7, Beza followed Stephanus' typographical error ¹¹⁸ and therefore assumed the presence of the Comma in some of Stephanus' manuscripts, which is uncritical, but as such in line with similar assessments made elsewhere by Beza. Even when he writes 'we read' ('legimus'), this is simply his usual way of presenting Robert Stephanus' text or readings from Henri Stephanus' collations. Thus Gibbon's suggestion of 'deliberate falsehood' is not necessary, but 'strange misapprehension' there was, text-critically, which was probably inspired by Beza's theological endorsement of the longer reading.

117 On 1 John 5:7-8 (Gibbon, History II, p. 443 n. 120 (Chapter 37): 'The three witnesses have been established in our Greek Testaments by the prudence of Erasmus; the honest bigotry of the Complutensian editors; the typographical fraud, or error, of Robert Stephens in the placing a crotchet; and the deliberate falsehood, or strange misapprehension, of Theodore Beza').

118 The opening sign for the omission is put before ev x& ouQavcp and its closing sign immediately after it, instead of after ev xfj yfj. The omission itself is signalled in seven manuscripts; an eighth manuscript, Stephanus' ie' (min. 82), should have been included; in a positive apparatus only the Complutensian Polyglot could have been indicated.

Peter Ruckman

See Main Article: Johannine Comma and Peter Ruckman

James White

See Main Article: Johannine Comma and James White

Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman calls the Comma:

“the most obvious instance of a theologically motivated corruption in the entire manuscript tradition of the New Testament. Nonetheless, in my judgment, the comma's appearance in the tradition can scarcely be dated prior to the Trinitarian controversies that arose after the period under examination.” Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 52.

Ehrman states that the Trinity is affected without this verse:

“the doctrine of the Trinity must be inferred from a range of passages combined to show that Christ is God, as is the Spirit and the Father, and that there is, nonetheless, only one God. This passage, in contrast states the doctrine directly and succinctly.” Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind who Changed the Bible and Why, SanFrancisco, Harper Collins, 2005, 81.

J. K. Elliott

J. K. Elliott a modern textual critic says:

"By using criteria such as the above the critic may reach a conclusion in discussing textual variants and be able to say which variant is the original reading. However, it is legitimate to ask: can a reading be accepted as genuine if it is supported by only one ms.? There is no reason why an original reading should not have been preserved in only one ms. but obviously a reading can be accepted with greater confidence, when it has stronger support" Even Kurt Aland says: "Theoretically, the original readings can be hidden in a single ms. thus standing alone against the rest of tradition," and Tasker has a similar comment: "The possibility must be left open that in some cases the true reading may have been preserved in only a few witnesses or even in a single relatively late witness." The Effect of Recent Textual Criticism upon New Testament Studies," The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology, ed. W. D. Davies and D. Daube (Cambridge: The Cambridge University Press, 1956)

NIV Study Bible

The NIV Study Bible states:

1 John 5:7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

Marginal notes:

You will notice that the following phrase (Johannine Comma) is removed from their translation, ‘in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth:’.

This phrase appears in the marginal notes with this comment,

‘not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century’.

Footnotes:

In the footnote section of their Bible they have the following comment,

‘…some older English versions add the words found in the NIV text note. But the addition is not found in any Greek manuscript or New Testament translation prior to the fourteenth century.’

Richard Muller

Richard Muller who holds the P. J. Zondervan Chair for Doctoral Studies as professor of historical theology at Calvin Theological Seminary, and has a Ph.D. from Duke University, talks about the Johannine Comma, the text of 1 John 5:5-8. Here are sentences in favor of this trinitarian text:

Of the early sixteenth-century editions of the Greek text of the New Testament, the Complutensian Polyglott (1504-1514) includes the phrase. . . . Later editions [of Erasmus] (1527 and 1536) also include the "comma." Erasmus' third edition was followed on this point by both Stephanus (1546, 1549, 1550) and Beza (1565; with annotations, 1582). . . . Reformed theologians, following out the line of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza, tended to accept the text as genuine and, indeed, to use it as an integral part of their trinitarian theology. . . . In the theological works of the seventeenth-century orthodox---on the model provided by Calvin and Beza---the Johannine "comma" appears frequently, without question or comment, as one Johannine text among others cited in a catena of texts from the Gospel, the Apocalypse, and the epistles as grounds of the doctrine of the Trinity. Often the phrase is simply cited without comment as a supporting text, while some of the high orthodox writers note that it was cited by Cyprian---thus, by implication, refuting the arguments concerning its extremely late date. . . . Turretin noted that Erasmus had located the passage in a "most ancient British codex" and that "most praiseworthy editions, the Complutensian, the Antwerp, Arias Montanus, R. Stephanus, and Walton, which have all utilized the best codices, have the phrase. Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 2, Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology.

D. A. Waite

Waite said of Nolan in 1979:

“Another explanation that Dr. Nolan made, which I have remembered, is that the head of the Greek Orthodox church in either the 200's A.D. or the 300's A.D., along with both the Arians and the Sabellians, did not believe in the Trinity. Because of this, Dr. Nolan believed that he ordered all the Greek manuscripts in his possession which had 1 John 5:7-8 to remove those 25 Greek Words. This explains why the words have been cut out of so many Greek manuscripts. This theory goes right along with the above quotations.”

“Although I do not agree with Roman Catholicism, the Western church of Rome has never had any doubts about the Trinity of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. For this reason, there are hundreds of Latin New Testament manuscripts where all 25 of these Greek Words and all 24 of these English words are present without any question whatsoever.”

But Nolan actually said:

“When separated from the sacred context, as they are always in quotation, the doctrine which they appear most to favour is that of the Sabellians; but this heresy was as contrary to the tenets of those who conformed to the Catholick as of those who adhered to the Arian opinions. It thus becomes as improbable that the former should have inserted, as it is probable the latter suppressed those verses; and just as probable is it, that both parties might have acquiesced in their suppression when they were once removed from the text of Scripture. If we connect this circumstance with that previously advanced, that Eusebius, the avowed adversary of the Sabellians, expunged these verses from his text, and that every manuscript from which they have disappeared is lineally descended from his edition, every difficulty in which this intricate subject is involved directly vanishes. The solution of the question lies in this narrow space, that he expunged them from the text, as opposed to his peculiar opinions; and the peculiar apprehensions which were indulged of Sabellianism, by the orthodox, prevented them from restoring those verses, or citing them in their controversies with the Arians. (Frederick Nolan, An Inquiry Into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, London, 1815, p. 252)

Nolen was actually accusing Eusebius for removing the Comma Johanneum out of the scriptures.

Thomas Holland

"But what is most compelling is the Greek text itself. The phrase in verse 8, "to pneuma, kai to udor, kai to aima (the Spirit, and the water, and the blood)" are all neuter nouns. They are, however, contiguous with the phrase, "oi marturountes (who bare witness)" which stands in the masculine (as does the Greek word for three, treis). The proper grammatical explanation for this, mixing the neuter and the masculine, is that the parallel is introduced in verse 7. There we find the phrase, "o pater, o logos, kai to agion pneuma (the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost)" which are masculine nouns (with the exception of the Holy Ghost, which stands in the neuter). This would allow for the masculine "oi marturountes" since the clause contains two masculine nouns. If, on the other hand, the masculine nouns of verse 7 are removed we are at a loss as to why the masculine is used in verse 8. Therefore, the inclusion of the Comma is not only proper theology, it is proper Greek." (Dr. Holland, A Verse by Verse Commentary on the Epistle of 1 John, as found on his website)

Timothy Dunkin

“Because this verse is one of the most direct statements of the biblical doctrine of the Trinity, it has borne the brunt of attack by those who are in opposition to trinitarian beliefs, these most often being unitarians such as Muslims and certain of the various pseudo-Christian cult groups (Jehovah's Witnesses, some Churches of God, etc.). Likewise, this verse is rejected by theological liberals who tend to view the Bible from an entirely naturalistic perspective, and who therefore also reject the doctrine of the preservation of Scripture (Psalm 12:6-7, Matt. 5:18, Luke 16:17, I Pet. 1:25, etc.).” [Dunkin, p. 3]

“Hiebert then continues on into a discussion of the much-heralded (and much-misrepresented) inclusion of the Comma by Erasmus into the third edition of his Greek text. A similar charge is leveled in many of the more popular Evangelical study Bibles. For example, Ryrie states,

‘Verse 7 should end with the word record. The rest of verse 7 and all of verse 8 are not in any ancient Greek mss.’(6)” [p. 4]

Footnote 6: “C.C. Ryrie, The Ryrie Study Bible: King James Version, Expanded Edition (1994), note on I John 5:7-8. We should note that Ryrie is in fact in error on this point, as ‘the spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three agree in one’ appear in all manuscripts containing this passage.”

Dunkin, (page 11):

“Eusebius of Caesarea was the man chosen by Constantine to prepare the "official" copies of the Scriptures that were to be circulated throughout the Empire. Eusebius was likely responsible for the removal of the Comma from the Greek manuscripts which he promulgated for Constantine (Eusebius was in the very least sympathetic to Arianism), which formed the basis for such texts as Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. It is very well possible that even the Byzantine tradition was corrupted by the Arian heretics of the East in the 4th-5th centuries, and that the Eastern Emperors such as Constantius who came under the Arian heresy consciously sought to remove the Comma from the witness of the Greek scriptures of the East. This could answer the question why the Comma is missing from the bulk of the Greek manuscript tradition, but yet is evidenced in other traditions such as those of the Old Latin and the Syriac. Likewise, the systematic process of expunging this verse from new copies of this epistle is suggested by Jerome's complaint, mentioned above. This is especially suggestive when we note that Jerome resided in Bethlehem during the period in which he revised the general epistles for his Vulgate. Bethlehem, of course, is in the region where the Arian domination occurred, and Jerome revised the epistles not very long after orthodox control of the churches was re-established. It is not surprising, then, that he reports the textual corruption represented by the removal of the Comma.”

Dunkin, (page 12):

“We should note that, in general, it is much easier for scribes to simply make omissions from a text being transcribed than it is to add new readings in. Pickering makes this point in a general reference to the Byzantine, or “Traditional,” text, where he summarizes the results of a study of scribal tendencies in several of the early Alexandrian papyri...”

KJV Today

An article on the KJV_Today website looks at the Johannine first epistle text and asserts out that corruption in 1 John occurs in a number of doctrinally charged Christological verses, including full phrases. KJV Today notes that 1 John 2:23b is lacking in the majority Byzantine Greek ms line, yet supported in the Vulgate. (And 1 John 2:23b also has a very similar proposed method of accidental original text dropping in homoeoteleuton.) 1 John 4:3 and 1 John 5:13 have phrase omissions mostly in minority, early Alexandrian mss. They also discuss a corruption in 1 John 5:6, and there are omission/addition questions in 1 John 2:7 with from the beginning and 1 John 1:7 Christ. (The word corruption can apply symmetrically from both positions, whether an omission or addition.) Thus, they say that textual accident and even potential manipulation were relatively frequent in 1 John.."1 John has its fair share of early textual corruptions to demonstrate that passages were indeed altered for reasons of carelessness or infidelity … One thing is certain: the text of 1 John underwent corruption long before the alleged 'fabrication' of the Comma. With there being these other demonstrable examples of early textual corruptions, it is reasonable to suppose that the omission of the Comma was also an early textual corruption." [34]

Grantley McDonald

Grantley McDonald's book Raising the Ghost of Arius - Erasmus, the Johannine Comma and Religious Difference in Early Modern Europe.

Chris Thomas

Chris Pappas

In Defense of the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7

In 2016 C. H. Pappas wrote the book In Defense of the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7.

Elijah Hixson

See Main article: Johannine Comma and Elijah Hixson

Modern Versions that omit the Comma

“Because those who testify are three:” (A Conservative Version)

“Because three are the Ones testifying:” (Analytical-Literal Translation)

“For there are three who give their testimony [about Jesus]:” (An Understandable Version-The New Testament)

“And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.” (American Standard Version)

“And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is true.” (Bible Basic English)

“In fact, there are three who tell about it.” (Contemporary English Version)

“There are three witnesses -” (The Complete Jewish Bible)

“And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth.” (Common Edition, New Testament)

“For they that bear witness are three:” (Darby)

“For there are three that bear witness:” (English Majority Text Version)

“For there are three that testify:” (English Standard Version)

“There are three witnesses:” (Good News Bible)

“There are three witnesses:” (God's Word)

“For there are three that testify:” (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

“For there are three who testify:” (The Hebrew Names Version)

“For there are three witnesses-” (International Standard Version)

“And it is the Spirit who testified; because the Spirit is the truth.” (Living Oracles New Testament)

“A triple testimony:” (The Message)

“For there are three that testify:” (New American Standard Bible)

“So there are three witnesses that tell us about Jesus:” (New Century Version)

“For there are three that testify,” (NET Bible)

“There are three that give witness about Jesus.” (New International Reader's Version)

“For there are three that testify:” (New International Version)

“So we have these three witnesses -” (New Living Translation)

“There are three that testify:” (New Revised Standard Version Bible)

“And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth.” (Revised Standard Version)

“And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.” (Revised Version)

“Because there are three who bear witness:” (The Scriptures 1998)

“It is a three-fold testimony--” (Twentieth Century New Testament)

“For there are three who bear witness,” (Updated Bible Version)

“For there are three who testify:” (World English Bible)

Internal Evidence

1 John 5:4-9

For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world:

and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. 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 record in heaven,

the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:

and these three are one.

And there are three that bear witness in earth,

the spirit, and the water, and the blood:

and these three agree in one.

If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater:

for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

The Johannine style and wording clearly fit with the inclusion of the Comma, and elements like the flat repetition when verse 7 is omitted, the "witness of God" in verse 9 pointing right back to the heavenly witnesses and more.

Greek

Textus Receptus

Complutensian Polyglot

1 John 5:7 in Greek in the 1514 Complutensian Polyglot Bible

1 John 5:7 in Latin in the 1514 Complutensian Polyglot Bible

• 1514 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν/οἱ μαρτυροῦντες εν/τῷ οὐρανῷ,/ὁ πατήρ, καὶ/ὁ λόγος, καὶ/τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, καὶ/οἱ τρεῖς εῖς/τὸ ἕν εἰσι· (Complutensian Polyglot)

Desiderius Erasmus

The Johannine Comma omitted in Erasmus' 1516 Edition

The Johannine Comma omitted in Erasmus' 1519 Edition

The Johannine Comma in Erasmus' 1522 Edition

The Johannine Comma in Erasmus' 1527 Edition

• 1516 ὅτι τρεῖς ἐισιν ὁι μαρτυροῦντες. (Erasmus 1st Novum Instrumentum omne)
• 1519 ὅτι τρεῖς ἐισιν ὁι μαρτυροῦντες, (Erasmus 2nd)
• 1522 ὅτι τρεῖς ἐισιν ὁι μαρτυροῦντες ἑν τῷ ὁυρανῷ, πατὴρ, λόγος, καὶ πνεῦμα ἅγιου, καὶ οὗτοι ὁι τρεῖς ἕν ἐισι. (Erasmus 3rd Novum Testamentum omne)
• 1527 ὅτι τρεῖς ἐισιν ὁι μαρτυροῦντες ἑν τῷ ὁυρανῷ, ὁ πατὴρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα ἅγιου. (Erasmus 4th)
• 1535 ὅτι τρεῖς ἐισιν ὁι μαρτυροῦντες ἑν τῷ ὁυρανῷ ὁ πατὴρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα ἅγιου καὶ οὗτοι ὁι τρεῖς ἕν ἐισι. (Erasmus 5th)

Colinæus

• 1534 (Colinæus)

Stephanus

• 1546 (Robert Estienne (Stephanus) 1st)
• 1549 (Robert Estienne (Stephanus) 2nd)
• 1550 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες εν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν (Robert Estienne (Stephanus) 3rd)
• 1551 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες εν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν (Robert Estienne (Stephanus) 4th)

Theodore Beza

• 1. 1556/57 In Latin (see below) - counted as Beza's first major edition. 1556 Google and here. 1557 e-rara Bibliothèque de Genève, shelf mark Bb 2341

• 1559 unauthorised Basel edition - (Bibliothèque de Genève, shelf mark Bb 2347 e-rara & ULB Sachsen-Anhalt
• 1563: Beza’s Responsio against Castellio (referred to on the title page of the 1565 and 1582 editions): e-rara (Bibliothèque de Genève, shelf mark Bb 150).

• 2. 1565 (Novum Testamentum,- counted as Beza's second major edition. Geneva)

• 1565 (a special copy with Beza’s own handwritten notes in preparation of the third edition (MHR O4 cd (565) a):[35]
• 1565 Minor edition
• 1567 Minor edition
• 1569: Tremellius’ Syriac NT, with Beza’s Greek and Latin text included: e-rara and Google
• 1575: a Latin-only edition which introduces Chapter summaries
• 1580 Minor edition and also another minor edition here