Johannine Comma and James White

From Textus Receptus

On pp. 60-2 of his book The King James Only Controversy 1995 edition, James White does not mention any of the patristic testimonies; instead, he makes the following amazing statements:

. . . If indeed the Comma was a part of the original writing of the apostle John, we are forced to conclude that entire passages, rich in theological meaning, can disappear from the Greek manuscript tradition without leaving a single trace. In reality, the KJV Only advocate is arguing for a radical viewpoint on the New Testament text, a viewpoint that utterly denies the very tenacity that we discussed in chapter 3. Even "liberal" scholars will admit the outstanding purity of the NT text and the validity of the belief in the tenacity of that text . . . . ^{(p. 62;)}

But clearly we can see the traces of the Comma, even as early as the 3rd century in the church fathers. But because White already knows this, he restricts evidence for the witness in this passage to "the Greek manuscript tradition," glossing over the fact that we have a reading at 1 John 5:7 attested to by Cyprian in the third century, and many other witnesses. That some of these variants are the result of deliberate alterations is evident from certain citations of the church fathers (especially Tertullian, who went so far as to say that the Marcionites "are daily retouching their work, as daily they are convicted by us" [Against Marcion, Book IV, ch. 5]). Given that the "Comma," whether or not it is authentic, is the clearest notice in the New Testament of the Oneness of the Three Persons of the Trinity, it would not be hard to envision a scenario in which this passage was authentic but was removed by those who disbelieved in the Trinity.

White considers this a "radical viewpoint" on this verse, but it was clearly embraced by the translators of the reformation period. For, although Tyndale had placed the debated passage in italics and parentheses, both Geneva and the KJV offer not a shred of doubt in their presentations of this passage (either in the main text or the margin) that it was in the original manuscript of the apostle John. In doing so, one surmises that they felt that, in the words of Thomas Scott, it was:

. . . somewhat more likely that the Arians or Anti-Trinitarians [in the early church] should silently omit in their copies a testimony which was so decisive against them, or that it should be left out by the mistake of some ancient transcriber, than that the Trinitarians should directly forge and insert it. The Trinitarian, in fact, would be deprived only of one argument out of very many, with which he might attempt the conviction of his opponent, if this text were wholly regarded as spurious; for his doctrine is supported by other Scriptures: but if this testimony were admitted as the unerring word of GOD; all the ingenuity and diligence of opponents, would scarcely suffice to explain it away, or to avoid the inference, which must naturally be drawn from it.

In other words, the Geneva and KJV men presumably felt that such an omission was made to grind a "doctrinal axe" in the early days of the church, and that the original text read with the passage included. In fact, John Wesley accused the Roman Emperor Julian ("the Apostate") of "erasing this text out of as many copies as fell into his hands" in order to promote Arianism (Sermon 55, "On the Trinity"). Whatever we may think of Wesley's identification of the culprit, a clear motive for the "erasing this text" appears from Scott's remarks above.

James White made this claim in 2006:

"[W]hile I disagree with Byzantine priority, etc., at least that position can put together some form of defense of its position. But I draw the line with the Comma. 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..." ^[1]

In this statement, White is saying that John Calvin, Theodore Beza, the Westminster Assembly, Francis Turretin, Matthew Poole, the 1689 Baptist Assembly, Matthew Henry, John Gill, John Brown of Haddington, Robert L. Dabney, and Edward F. Hills are all to be considered "outside the realm of meaningful scholarship."

References

1. (04 March 2006, "The Comma Johanneum Again") James White, even while engaging in discussions on the Puritanboard forums, wrote "I draw the line with the Comma. Anyone who defends the insertion of the Comma is, to me, outside the realm of meaningful scholarship, unless, I guess, they likewise support the radical reworking of the entire text of the New Testament along consistent lines … plainly uninspired insertion." The Comma Johanneum Again 4 March 2006, also 16 March 2006.

External links

The King James Only Controversy Google Books

Johannine Comma

1 John 5:7

1 John 5:8

Pure Bible Forum

KJV Today

1 John 5:7 and Modern Criticism by Taylor Desoto

Codex Montfortianus, Erasmus, and 1 John 5:7

Erasmian Myths: The Comma Wager

Erasmian Myths: Codex Vaticanus

1 Jn.5:7,8 Establishing the Authenticity

Defense D. A. Waite

And These Three Are One

Manuscript Differences

“And These Three Are One” Part 1

Riddle Review of McDonald book

Hixson, the CJ, and Roman Catholic Provenance

Riddle on Hixson Part 1

Riddle on Hixson Part 2

Riddle on Hixson Part 3

Riddle - Internal Argument

Riddle - Papyrus

KJV Asia Scams

KJV Asia

KJV Asia Manuscripts

Setting the Record Straight

Dedending 1 John 5:7 by David Cloud

KJV "Errors"

(1 John 5:7-8) Is It Inspired Scripture?

First John 5:6-8 by Floyd Jones

Scion of Zion Article

Trinitarian Bible Society on Johannine Comma

1 John 5:7-8 by Jeffrey Khoo

1 John 5:7 by Thomas Golda

David Cloud Articles

Email Debate Gregory S. Neal and Thomas Holland

“And These Three Are One” Part 2

Internal Articles

Ignatius of Antioch

Origen‎‎

Augustine of Hippo

Clement of Alexandria

Codex Ottobonianus mss 629

Joseph Bryennios

Complutensian Polyglot

Erasmus

Eugenios Voulgaris

Christian Frederick Matthaei

Franz Anton Knittel

Frederick Nolan

Ezra Abbott

Walton's Polyglot

Links to Books

Frederick Nolan - An Inquiry

SS(ancti) apostolorum septem epistolae catholicae 1782 [1]

Joseph Bryennios Comma Quotation

New criticisms Knittle

13 Sermons - Doctrine of the Trinity Edmund Calamy

Raising the Ghost of Arius by Grantley McDonald

Letters To Edward Gibbon George Travis 1785

A Vindication...of Porson Thomas Turton 1827

Memoir of the Controversy. William Orme

A Vindication of 1st John v. 7 Thomas Burgess Web

Ben David

William Craig Brownlee 1825 Part 1

William Craig Brownlee 1825 Part 2

Theopneustia - François Samuel R. Louis Gaussen, 1841

New plea for the authenticity - Charles Forster 1867 [2][3]

Deux dissertations (French) English Martin

The doctrine of the Greek article - Thomas Middleton

Richard Porson I John v 7, 1790

The King James Version 2023 Edition New Testament is now complete and in print format here.

Internal Links

Old Testament - New Testament KJV 1900

New Testament KJV 2016

Scrivener's 1894 Textus Receptus

2016 Urdu New Testament (TR Based)

Russian Synodal Version (TR Based)

Reina Valera Gómez Spanish (TR Based)

Marginal Notes in the 1611 Authorized Version

Ephesians 3:9

Why We Should Not Passover Easter 1, 2, & 3

Will Kinney

List of TR/KJV based foreign bibles

List of New Testament minuscules

List of New Testament lectionaries

^{List of New Testament Papyri}

𝔓¹ · 𝔓² · 𝔓³ · 𝔓⁴ · 𝔓⁵ · 𝔓⁶ · 𝔓⁷ · 𝔓⁸ · 𝔓⁹ · 𝔓¹⁰ · 𝔓¹¹ · 𝔓¹² · 𝔓¹³ · 𝔓¹⁴ · 𝔓¹⁵ · 𝔓¹⁶ · 𝔓¹⁷ · 𝔓¹⁸ · 𝔓¹⁹ · 𝔓²⁰ · 𝔓²¹ · 𝔓²² · 𝔓²³ · 𝔓²⁴ · 𝔓²⁵ · 𝔓²⁶ · 𝔓²⁷ · 𝔓²⁸ · 𝔓²⁹ · 𝔓³⁰ · 𝔓³¹ · 𝔓³² · 𝔓³³ · 𝔓³⁴ · 𝔓³⁵ · 𝔓³⁶ · 𝔓³⁷ · 𝔓³⁸ · 𝔓³⁹ · 𝔓⁴⁰ · 𝔓⁴¹ · 𝔓⁴² · 𝔓⁴³ · 𝔓⁴⁴ · 𝔓⁴⁵ · 𝔓⁴⁶ · 𝔓⁴⁷ · 𝔓⁴⁸ · 𝔓⁴⁹ · 𝔓⁵⁰ · 𝔓⁵¹ · 𝔓⁵² · 𝔓⁵³ · 𝔓⁵⁴ · 𝔓⁵⁵ · 𝔓⁵⁶ · 𝔓⁵⁷ · 𝔓⁵⁸ · 𝔓⁵⁹ · 𝔓⁶⁰ · 𝔓⁶¹ · 𝔓⁶² · 𝔓⁶³ · 𝔓⁶⁴ · 𝔓⁶⁵ · 𝔓⁶⁶ · 𝔓⁶⁷ · 𝔓⁶⁸ · 𝔓⁶⁹ · 𝔓⁷⁰ · 𝔓⁷¹ · 𝔓⁷² · 𝔓⁷³ · 𝔓⁷⁴ · 𝔓⁷⁵ · 𝔓⁷⁶ · 𝔓⁷⁷ · 𝔓⁷⁸ · 𝔓⁷⁹ · 𝔓⁸⁰ · 𝔓⁸¹ · 𝔓⁸² · 𝔓⁸³ · 𝔓⁸⁴ · 𝔓⁸⁵ · 𝔓⁸⁶ · 𝔓⁸⁷ · 𝔓⁸⁸ · 𝔓⁸⁹ · 𝔓⁹⁰ · 𝔓⁹¹ · 𝔓⁹² · 𝔓⁹³ · 𝔓⁹⁴ · 𝔓⁹⁵ · 𝔓⁹⁶ · 𝔓⁹⁷ · 𝔓⁹⁸ · 𝔓⁹⁹ · 𝔓¹⁰⁰ · 𝔓¹⁰¹ · 𝔓¹⁰² · 𝔓¹⁰³ · 𝔓¹⁰⁴ · 𝔓¹⁰⁵ · 𝔓¹⁰⁶ · 𝔓¹⁰⁷ · 𝔓¹⁰⁸ · 𝔓¹⁰⁹ · 𝔓¹¹⁰ · 𝔓¹¹¹ · 𝔓¹¹² · 𝔓¹¹³ · 𝔓¹¹⁴ · 𝔓¹¹⁵ · 𝔓¹¹⁶ · 𝔓¹¹⁷ · 𝔓¹¹⁸ · 𝔓¹¹⁹ · 𝔓¹²⁰ · 𝔓¹²¹ · 𝔓¹²² · 𝔓¹²³ · 𝔓¹²⁴ · 𝔓¹²⁵ · 𝔓¹²⁶ · 𝔓¹²⁷ · 𝔓¹²⁸ · 𝔓¹²⁹ · 𝔓¹³⁰ · 𝔓¹³¹ · 𝔓¹³² · 𝔓¹³³ · 𝔓¹³⁴ · 𝔓¹³⁵ · 𝔓¹³⁶ · 𝔓¹³⁷ · 𝔓¹³⁸ · 𝔓¹³⁹ · 𝔓¹⁴⁰ ·