INTRODUCTION

In the Vulgate¹ 1 John 5:7-8 contains the following:

⁷Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonnium dant in caelo: 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.

By way of an example of the problem, no longer can it be taken for granted that everyone is carrying a KJV to church. The following is a list of Bibles arranged by how they treat the Comma.²

GREEK NEW TESTAMENTS

Comma Included

H KAINE DIAQHKH, The New Testament

Novum Testamentum Graece (NA²⁷)
The Greek New Testament (UBS⁴)
The Greek New Testament, according to the Majority Text

Comma Included

La Santa Biblia
Biblia Vulgata

Die Heilige Schrift

Comma Included

The Douay-Rheims Bible
The King James Version
The New King James Version

The New American Standard Bible
The New International Version
The Jersualem Bible (A Catholic Version)
 
As is apparent, most modern versions do not include it although most do indicate its existence with a footnote. The problems a pastor may encounter over this passage may depend on the age of the congregation and their attachment to a particular version.

In this paper we will look at the verse and its critical history. We will then consider some textual methods by which this and similar verses should be studied.

HISTORY OF THE TEXT

The text as displayed by the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th edition is:

⁷o{ti trei'" eijsin oiJ marturou'nte", ⁸ toV pneu'ma kaiV toV u{dwr kaiV toV ai|ma, kaiV oiJ trei'" eij" toV e{n eijsin.
 
The alternate reading is given as:
en tw ouranw, o pathr, o logo" kai to agiou pneuma, kai outoi oi trei" e{n eisin. ⁸kai prei" eisin oi partupountre" en th gh, to pneuma, kai to aigiou, kai oi trei" ei" to en eisin.
 
EXTERNAL CONSIDERATIONS

The Greek evidences for the alternate reading of the text are cited by Brown to be eight, four of which include the Comma in the text and four that cite it in a marginal note⁴ These consist of:
 

a. 61: Codex Montfortianus, early 16th century.
b. 629: Codex Ottobonianus, 14th or 15th century text with Latin next to a Greek text revised to conform to the Latin.
c. 918: an Escorial manuscript, 16th century.
d. 2318: A Bucharest Manuscript of the 18th century influenced by the Clementine Vulgate.
e. 88vl: variant reading of the 16th century added to the twelfth-century Codex Regius at Naples.
f. 221vl: variant reading added to a tenth-century manuscript.
g. 429vl: variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript.
h. 636vl: variant reading added to a 15th-century manuscript.
 
The manuscripts cited indicate the lateness of the Comma and suggest that its source was Latin. This is borne out by the story concerning the Comma and Erasmus as pointed out by Metzger^.5 In Erasmus' first edition the Comma was left out, which exposed him to some serious ecclesiastical heat. Through pressure and some alleged textual shenanigans he included it in his third and subsequent editions.⁶

The question for us now is, if the Comma was not in any Greek manuscript earlier than the middle ages, what is its source? Brown⁷ states concerning the Comma that "...it does not appear in the OL [Old Latin] until after A.D. 600, nor in the Vg [Vulgate] until after 750...Even then its appearance is geographically limited. . ." reflecting ". . . Spanish origin or influence." Included in the Latin witnesses are:
 

a. Palimpset of Leon Cathedral: OL-Vg, 7th century, Spanish.
b. Fragment of Freisling: OL-Vg, 7th century, Spanish.
c. Codex Cavensis: Vg, 9th century, Spanish.
d. Codex Complutensis: Vg, 10th century Spanish.
e. Codex Toletanus: Vg, 10th century, Spanish.
f. Codes Theodulphianus: Vg, 8th or 9th century, Franco-Spanish.
g. Some Sangallense manuscripts: Vg, 8th or 90th century Franco-Spanish.


Concerning the Roman Catholic church's discussions over the centuries about the Comma, Brown notes the church's (R.C.) acceptance of traditional portions of the Bible regardless of authorship. The requirement for centuries was not so much authentic authorship but the fact that it (or any verse or portion of scripture) was in traditional usage and found in the Vulgate. Brown contends that the Comma need not be included under this heading because of its absence from Jerome's Vulgate.⁸ The textual path has led down from Greek manuscripts heavily influenced by Latin works to Spanish Latin manuscripts of the 8th and 9th centuries. Where then did these originate?

Brown surveys several major church fathers in an attempt to discover any early knowledge of the Comma and finds none among such writers as Tertullian, Augustine, and Cyprian. References are made to formulas similar to the Comma but with no actual and verifiable citation.⁹ What is found as the possible origin of the Comma, or at least one of the first uses of it, is in Priscillian's work, Liber apologeticus. Priscillian (4th-5th centuries) led a heretical sect in Spain in the late 4th century, being executed in 386 by the Emperor Maximus' court.¹⁰ Of Manichean theology (a highly developed form of Gnosticism denying the deity of Jesus¹¹) it is thought that he read into the Comma the idea that God had three modes (modalism) and that this helped reinforce his leanings.¹² Brown, however, has shown that the Comma can easily be read in a conventional sense. Indeed, it has been used apologetically throughout church history.¹³ Though it first appears in Priscillian's writings, it still cannot be solidly asserted that it originated with him.¹⁴

INTERNAL CONSIDERATIONS

There is a need now to consider the internal evidences concerning this text. Interesting for this aspect of the discussion is the inclusion of the word logo" in the disputed text. Though it is considered to be a rather Johannine word (when used theologically), its use in a personal sense directly identifiable with Jesus Christ is limited to the Comma.¹⁵

The textual reading cited by NA²⁷ seems to be the one that is most in line with the surrounding text. The paragraph is introduced in verse 5 with tiv" [de]vestin. Verse 6a concerns the coming of Jesus Christ by u{dato" kaiV ai{mato" and in 6b we have mention of the pne'umav as a witness to him. Verses 7 and 8 tie the three together as witnesses; to pneu'ma kai to udwr kai to aima and make these three to be one. The bringing in of geographic locations for the witnesses would interfere with the reading of this passage. For added emphasis it should be noted that without the Comma the words and gh and ourano", like logo", are not to be found in 1 John.¹⁶ It seems that the whole sense of the verse is interrupted by the inclusion of the Comma. Although the harder reading is usually preferred, I believe that this falls into Metzger's exception clause.¹⁷

We have traced the textual history of the text from a possible creation by Priscillian in the 5th century to some 8th century Latin manuscripts and finally to Greek texts of the middle ages, heavily influenced by the Latin versions, particularly the Vulgate. We have also seen that it interrupts the sense and smooth flow of the 5th chapter of 1 John and bears little resemblance to the surrounding verses or the book itself. The obvious conclusion is that this verse is an apparent inclusion to the original text, perhaps by being moved in from a side note position. Acceptance of this viewpoint is not universal, unfortunately, and the reasons cited by various writers show a dangerous tendency in this author's opinion.

PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS

PHILOSOPHY

First let me state that this verse serves as a very good apologetic for at least a familiarity with, if not an in-depth knowledge of, the art and science of Textual Criticism. There is a popular bumper sticker that reads, "God said it, I believe, it that settles it." The question that must be answered in this regard is, did God actually say it or was it a traditional saying of the church that found its way, by whatever means, into the canon of the Bible? This verse serves as a good barometer of one's approach to the study of the Bible. Does one, particularly a pastor, take the time to consider the textual questions of a given passage and relay his findings to the church, or does he keep himself in ignorance? Allow me to illustrate this by reference to two very different theological entities and expose what I believe is a very grave danger that it shows an unwillingness to "do" Textual Criticism and to rely too much on the work of others, no matter the quality of the workmanship.

Relying only on common knowledge and unable to cite any real statistics on the matter, I am going to say that the Roman Catholic Church through the centuries has held the Vulgate to be the official "Bible" of the church. The same may be said, I feel, of conservative Christians and the King James Version. Both groups show a marked preference for a particular version. This writer has even been told by several different people that if it did not come from the King James Version, then it was of the devil!

To cite the Catholic position concerning what is or is not to be included in the officially accepted text, let me refer again to Brown. In his footnote on page 781 he makes the following observation concerning another disputed passage in relation to the discussion of the Comma:
 

This interpretation [that scriptural authenticity does not depend on genuineness] was confirmed on June 2, 1927, by a declaration of the Holy Office (the renamed successor to the Congregation of the Inquisition) stating that, while scholars were free to discuss and deny the genuineness of the Comma, only the Church could decide whether it was authentically a part of Scripture. A good example of the distinction is supplied by the story of the adultress in John 7:53-8:11. Like other scholars, Roman Catholic exegetes recognize that it was not written by the evangelist but added to Gjohn by scribes (thus, not genuine). However, they would also recognize that it is authentic Scripture according to the norms of the Council of Trent, which did not make authorship a criterion of canonicity.
 
Such an attitude toward the sacred text (by the Catholic Church) could very easily be called a preference for the traditions of man. But such is one of the hallmarks of the Roman church and therefore is not surprising. Such should not be the case of an evangelical conservative theologian.

Dr. Edward Hill, in his article in the Bible League Quarterly¹⁸ concludes his argument defending the Comma with the statement:
 

In other words, it is not impossible that the Johannine Comma was one of those few true readings of the Latin Vulgate not occurring in the traditional text but incorporated into the Textus Receptus under the guiding providence of God. In these rare instances God used the usage of the Latin-speaking Church to correct the usage of the Greek-speaking Church.
 
Such a defense of a text from a favorite version courts the danger of having to apply this methodology evenly throughout the considered text or book. Dr. Hill seems to be saying in his argument that at this one point the Latin Bible preserved an inspired verse that was lost to the Greek text and God used the Latin to Correct the Greek when the TR was published. If this view is true, then why is it not true that the rest of the Latin Bible is every bit as true as this one verse-where do you divide? Do you not include the Apocryphal books that are also included in the Vulgate? Where is the dividing line and what do you use as guidelines in deciding.¹⁹

Such is not good scholarship and is not good stewardship of the mental and scholastic tools entrusted to us. Such an adherence even ignores the fact that Luther took a very vigorous stance against this verse and voiced a strong opinion against those that originated it.²⁰ Does one utilize blind acceptance of a work or make use of the science of Textual Criticism to determine the true reading of a passage?

CONCLUSION

As can be seen by the above material, even a small verse has given people problems and has led to serious debate. A Pastor must not think that the controversies will not be encountered by him. The need for him to know and understand the methodology behind textual criticism is absolute. It must be learned and utilized. No one as yet has found an autograph so we must be very vigilant concerning the words written on the pages of our Bibles and understand that there may be variant readings and that they must be dealt with.

---


BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLES

Aland, Kurt, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, and Allen Wikgren, eds. The Greek New Testament, 3rd ed., West Germany: United Bible Society, 1975

Biblia Vulgata, iuxta Vulgatam Clementinam, Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristanos [1982]

Criswell, W.A., ed., The Criswell Study Bible: Nashville, Thomas Nelson, Publishers 1979

Die Heilege Schrift, Nach der deutschen Ubersetzung Martin Luther. National Publishing Company (no other information given)

Hodges, Zane C., Arthur L. Farstad, eds., The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text. 2nd ed, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1985

The Living Bible, paraphrased. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers [1972]

Nestle, Eberhard, Erwin Nestle, eds., Novum Testamentum Graece 26th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstifung, 1979

New American Standard Bible, Reference Edition. LaHabra, CA.: The Lockman Foundation [1977]

New International Version of The Holy Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Bible Publishers [1984]

New Jerusalem Bible. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc. [1985]

Santa Biblica. New York: American Bible Society [1982]

Tischendorf, Constantinus, ed., Novum Testamentum Graece, vol II, Lipsiae: Giescke & Devrient, 1872, 872

BOOKS

Aland, Kurt, Barbara Aland. The Text of the New Testament, An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1987.

Brown, Raymond E. The Epistles of John. Anchor Bible Sereis. Garden City, New York: Double Day & Company, Inc., 1982.

Burdick, Donald W. The Letters of John the Apostle. Chicago: Moody Press, 1985.

Carson, D. A. The King James Version Debate. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979.

Metzger, Bruce. The Text of the New Testament, Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 2d ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1968.

Westcott, Brooke Foss. The Epistles of St. John. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 1966.

ARTICLES

de Jonge, H. J. "Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum." Ephemerides Theologicai Louanienses, (Dec. 1980): 381-389.

Hills, Edward F. "The Johannine Comma (1 John 5.7)." Bible League Quarterly, 315 (October-December 1978): 170-173.

Posset, Frank. "John Bugenhagen and the Comma Johanneum." Concordia Theological Quarterly, 245-251.

Richards, W. L. "A Critique of a New Testament Text Critical Methodology-The Claremont Profile Method." Journal of Biblical Literature, 96.2 (December 1977): 555-566.

---


ENDNOTES

¹Biblia Vulgata, iuxta Vulgatum Clementinam (Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos) [1982]
²All bibliographic material for these Bibles will be found in the bibliography at the end.
³These two are included for two reasons. 1) The German one is from Luther's edition and reflects his attitude for the consideration of conservative Protestants. 2) The Spanish one is included to indicate to Criswell students, and anyone else contemplating a missionary visit to a Latin American country, what is utilized there.
⁴Raymond E. Brown, The Epistles of John, The Anchor Bible series (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1982), 776-777
⁵Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), 101
⁶Henk Jan de Jonge makes some interesting observations concerning the story of Erasmus and the Comma in his article "Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum," Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 56 (December 1980) 381-389. He disagrees with Megzer's traditional assertions but he does little to alter the basic story concerning the insertion of the Comma in Erasmus' 3rd edition.
⁷Brown, 779
⁸However, it is found in the Clementine Vulgate, the official Vulgate of the Roman Catholic Church today.
⁹Brown, 783-785
¹⁰Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd ed., s.v. "Priscillianism"
¹¹ODCC, s,v, "Manes"
¹²Brown, 781-782
¹³Brown, 782
¹⁴Brown, 781
¹⁵W.F. Moulton, ed., Concordance to the Greek New Testament, 5th ed., (Edinburgh:T.&T. Clark Ltd., 1978) s.v.
¹⁶CGNT, s.v. ,
¹⁷Metzger, 217
¹⁸Edward F. Hills, "The Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7), Bible League Quarterly, (October-December, 1978), 170-173.
¹⁹Even among staunch adherents to the KJV there is disagreement concerning this verse. Zane Hodge in his edition The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, 2nd ed., (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Inc.), 713 leaves the Comma out of the body of the text and relegates it to a footnote.
²⁰Franz Posset, "John Bugenhagen and the Comma Johanneum, Concordia Theological Quarterly, (no. 4245-2510 1985) 246-251.