"And after him was Shammah the son of Agee the
Hararite.And the Philistines were
gathered together into a troop, where was a piece of ground full of
lentiles: and the people fled from the Philistines.But
he stood in the midst of the ground, and defended it, and slew the
Philistines: and the LORD wrought a great victory."
-II
Samuel 23:11-12
-Jesse M. Boyd
AND THESE THREE ARE ONE
I
John 5:7-8, commonly referred to as the Johannine Comma, has been
one of the most hotly debated passages with regard to its authenticity
for over a century.Because it is
one of those few passages included in the Textus Receptus which
has a weak attestation from Greek manuscripts, many a student has paced
his study for hours struggling with the question as to whether or not the
Comma
is a legitimate part of the Holy Scriptures.The
hasty dismissal of this passage in most modern versions of the Bible is
largely due to the fact that it is only found in eight of the five hundred
Greek manuscripts that witness to the fifth chapter of I John.Consequently,
it is almost unanimously regarded among modern textual critics as a later
scribal emendation.
The
primary English translation that contains the Johannine Comma is
the Authorized King James Bible which is based upon the Greek Textus
Receptus.The passage reads:
7For there are
three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.8And
there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water,
and the blood: and these three agree in one.
Most
modern translations (NAS, NIV, RSV, NLT, LB et. al.), on the other hand,
are based upon the Alexandrian text-type tradition (i.e. Sinaiticus and
Vaticanus).These versions commonly
read as does the NIV:
7For
there are three that testify: 8the spirit, the water, and the
blood; and the three are in agreement.
As
anyone can clearly see, there is a substantial omission and consequent
mix-up of the text.The modern versions
arrive at such a rendering by completely removing verse 7, as found in
the AV; then, the phrase "in the earth" is excised and the first phrase
of verse 8 (There are three that bear witness) becomes verse 7.Thus,
the entire arrangement and sense of the passage is altered.
Unfortunately,
this altering of the text is often accepted without question.In
fact, the issue is rarely, if ever, reasoned through in modern times.Accusations
against the passage's authenticity are simply announced as though they
were facts.Such conclusions imply
that there is no evidence that can be mounted in favor of the
Comma's
genuineness.This, however, is far
from the truth.The purpose of this
study is to construct such a case.In
doing so, the author will apply ten exegetical tools to the text of I John
5:7-8, gearing them toward the issue of authenticity.The
overall purpose of such exegesis is not to prove genuineness although the
author would concede to such a conclusion.Rather,
the evidence will show that a case for authenticity deserves a hearing
as much, if not more than a case for spuriousness.The
issue, in other words, is not settled as most critical commentators would
assert; there are no foregone conclusions.After
all, the burden of proof lies with the accuser whose responsibility it
is to prove that the text is an emendation.The
exegesis that follows will at the very least cast a shadow of doubt on
the accusation itself therefore precluding its ability to be proven.May
God Almighty guide this quest which seeks, above all, to magnify and establish
his perfectly preserved Word.
Historical Analysis
The
epistle of I John was probably written late in the first century (ca. 90)
from Ephesus by none other than the Apostle John.The
intended audience is not exactly clear;however,
the lack of personal references suggests that it was written to Christians
all across Asia Minor.The same can
be said for John's Gospel which was also written from Ephesus in the same
general time period (ca. 85-90).It
is interesting to note the literary coherence that exists between these
two separate New Testament writings.The
well-known Greek scholar, A.T. Robertson, once wrote, "in the whole of
the First Epistle [I John] there is hardly a single thought that is not
found in the Gospel [John]."This
coherence has been considered even more evident than that which exists
between Luke and Acts.Such a fact
has led some to believe that I John served as preface or dedicatory epistle
to the Gospel of John, for both Books are characterized by repetition,
contrast, parallelism, personal elements, profound spirituality, and doctrine.Historically
speaking, it is very possible that the Gospel of John was attached to the
epistle as it was sent out to the addressees.I
John was to be read as an introduction or commentary on the teachings of
the Gospel.John Ebrard writes:
It [I John] bears the stamp
of a preface or dedicatory epistle.
The
Apostle addresses himself to specific readers, and holds communion, person
to person, with them, in that we mark the essence of the epistle; but he
does this on occasion of another communication, to which this is attached,
and to which it refers; and therefore, in its form, it is no epistle, no
simple and direct substitute of oral speech, but an address uttered on
occasion of the reading of another and different communication.
The
exhortations contained in I John were uttered by the Apostle on occasion
of the contents contained in the Gospel.Having
understood the principles of Christians fellowship promulgated in the Epistle,
the reader could proceed to understand the entire basis of his fellowship,
the life and work of Jesus Christ as promulgated in the Gospel.
Regarding
the issue at hand, such a distinct literary/historical coherence fully
supports the inclusion of the Johannine Comma.The
resounding theme of the Gospel of John is the divinity of Jesus Christ.Such
is summed up in John 10:30, when Jesus says, "I and my Father are one."This
same theme is prevalent in the Epistle, being concisely and clearly stated
in 5:7-8.The Comma truly
bears coherence with the message of John's Gospel in this sense.It
serves as an occasion to introduce the doctrine of the Trinity as the original
readers prepared to study the attached Gospel.Although
Christ's divinity is inferred throughout the epistle, one is not confronted
with such succinct declaration as is conveyed in the Comma.If
this passage is omitted, it seems that the theme of John's Gospel would
lack a proper introduction.
It
is interesting to note that one of the earliest allusions to the Johannine
Comma in church history is promulgated in connection to the thematic
statement made by the Lord in John 10:30.Cyprian
writes around A.D. 250, "The Lord says 'I and the Father are one' and likewise
it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 'And these
three are one.'"The
theological teaching of the Comma most definitely bears coherence
with the overriding theme of John's Gospel.There
is no reason tobelieve that the
verse is not genuine in this sense, for it serves as a proper prelude to
the theme of the Gospel which, historically speaking, most likely accompanied
the Epistle as it was sent out to its original audience.
The
heresy of Gnosticism is also of notable importance with regard to the historical
context surrounding the Johannine Comma.This
"unethical intellectualism" had begun to make inroads among churches in
John's day; its influence would continue to grow up until the second century
when it gave pure Christianity a giant struggle.Generally
speaking, Gnosticism can be described as a variety of syncretic religious
movements in the early period of church history that sought to answer the
question, "What must I do to be saved?"The
Gnostic answer was that a person must possess a secret knowledge.One
of the major tenets of Gnosticism was the essential evil of matter; the
physical body, in other words, was viewed as evil.According
to this line of thought, Jesus Christ could not have been fully God and
fully man, for this would have required him to posses an evil physical
body.
The
seeds of the Gnostic heresy seem to be before John's mind in his first
epistle; nine times he gives tests for knowing truth in conjunction with
the verb ginwskw
(to know).This
being said, the Johannine Comma would have constituted an integral
component of the case the Apostle made against the false teachings of the
Gnostics, especially with regard to the nature of Christ.Robertson
notes that John's Gospel was written to prove the deity of Christ, assuming
his humanity, while I John was written to prove the humanity of Christ,
assuming his deity.He
goes on to say, "Certainly both ideas appear in both books."If
these notions are true, then the Comma is important to John's polemic.Jesus
Christ, the human Son of God, is the eternal, living Word (cf. John 1:1).The
Word, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, bears witness to "he that
came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ" (I John 5:6).This
assertion would have flown right into the face of Gnosticism.
On
the flip side of the coin, the Gnostics would have completely disregarded
the truth promulgated in the Johannine Comma.In
fact, they may have excised it from the text in the same way that Marcion
took a butcher knife to the New Testament in the second century.Also,
the Arian heresy, which taught that Jesus was not God but a created being,
grew out of Gnosticism.In fact,
it was widespread in the Church during the third and fourth centuries.Not
long after the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325), an ecumenical council that
denounced Arianism, "the whole world woke from a deep slumber and discovered
that it had become Arian."Perhaps
the prevalent influences of these heresies were responsible for the text
falling out of many manuscripts and versions of the New Testament.This
hypothesis is at least as plausible as competing theories which suppose
that someone added the verses to combat heretical teaching.
Literary Analysis
In
addition to the matter of historical context, the literary context of I
John 5:7-8 demands our attention.All
three levels of literary analysis—canonical, remote, and immediate contexts—are
important.With regard to the text's
place in the New Testament canon, the Johannine Comma is the only
clear affirmation of the Trinity throughout the entire New Testament.Apart
from it, the triune nature of God is only arrived at after having pieced
numerous passages together (e.g. Matthew 28:18 + John 10:30 + John 1:1
+ Acts 5:3-4).If a later scribe
interpolated the passage to make a case for the Trinity, there are many
other places that it could have been inserted so as to disguise its spuriousness.For
example, the statement "these three are one" would have made a nice addition
to the phrase "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost" in Matthew 28:19.
The
Johannine
Comma also fits the remote context of the entire epistle of I John.This
can be seen by focusing upon the book's genre.I
John has long been classified as an epistle proper, a letter written to
simply edify other believers in the faith.However,
it lacks the external form as is characteristic of other New Testament
epistles.I John contains no formal
greeting or benediction, and the author and readers are not mentioned or
specified.Hayes argues, "There
is no suggestion of any particular occasion for the writing of I John.It
might have been written at almost any time and in almost any place and
under almost any conditions.Its
contents are suitable for all times and places and conditions of men."These
facts have caused some to cast aside the notion of "epistolary form" in
favor ofthe theological treatise
such as is found in the Book of Hebrews.However,
this classification also has its problems because I John is not "a production
sent forth in the form of a treatise, but a thoroughly epistolary outpouring
of thought and feelings."
Perhaps
the best classification of I John can be arrived at by blending epistle
and treatise.Vedder argues that
the affinities of this book are with the Wisdom literature.He
writes, "The lack of continuity of thought, so perplexing to those who
persist in regarding this as epistolary in literary form, becomes appropriate
and even characteristic in a composition of the Wisdom order."In
other words, one sees a collection on brief essays or thought, more or
less connected to a general theme - the fellowship of the believer."A
brief prologue states this theme, and an equally brief epilogue sums up
what the writer regards as the chief things established by what he has
written."One,
however, cannot completely dismiss the epistolary connotation.I
John is a letter in which the author expresses a personal relation to a
definite class of readers."The writer
is concerned throughout with a given situation.He
takes for granted that his readers are acquainted with the persons and
events he has in mind, and makes allusions, in almost every paragraph,
to which the clue has now been lost."With
all of this in mind, the word "Epistolary Treatise" can be coined to fit
I John.The Book contains numerous
brief discourses dealing with a wide range of subjects.At
the same time, however, while the Apostle chooses not to use the set epistolary
forms, he approaches the readers as a community, briefly addressing them
in the prologue (1:1-4) as well as the epilogue (5:21).Furthermore,
the theological discussions contained therein are laced with personal emotion
and feeling which is common in New Testament epistles.
How
does the genre of I John relate to the Comma?If
the book is properly recognized as an "Epistolary Treatise," then the theological
teaching contained in 5:7-8 fits the structure of the epistle neatly.Such
a statement, in fact, would be expected.The
Epistle of I John can be broken down in the following manner:
I.Prologue
(1:1-4)
II.Our
Advocate (1:8-2:2)
III.Obedience
(2:3-6)
IV.Purpose
(2:12-14)
V.Love
of the World (2:15-17)
VI.Antichrist
(2:18-28)
VII.Character
of God's Children (2:29-3:12)
IX.Love
(3:13-24)
X.Test
of the Spirit (3:24-4:6)
XI.God
is Love (4:7-21)
XII.Victory
of Faith (5:1-5)
XIII.Three
Witnesses (5:6-13)
XIV.Prayer
(5:14-17)
XV.Epilogue
Each
aforementioned section, excluding the prologue and epilogue, constitutes
a brief discourse on a different theological topic.While
no particular order is apparent, each discourse serves to heighten the
readers understanding of Christian fellowship, the overriding theme of
I John.
The
Comma
is
found in the midst of a brief discourse dealing with three witnesses.This
discourse contributes to the overall theme of the Book by promulgating
a consequence of Christian fellowship, the verification of Christ's credentials.The
Comma,
nicely aligned with the structure of the entire book, shows plainly that
Christ is one with the Father and the Spirit as he bears witness in heaven.
At the same time,his baptism, crucifixion,
and the earthly ministry of the Holy Spirit bear witness on earth.It
is these witnesses that verify Christ's identity as the Son of God.In
light of these facts, the believer can have fellowship with God Almighty.If
the Comma is omitted from the passage, the structure breaks down.The
theological argument of 5:6-12 becomes vague and one is left trying to
figure out how to apply these verses.They
most definitely do not fall in line with the preceding discourse (Victory
of Faith) or the one that follows (Prayer).
Finally,
I John 5:7-8 fits the immediate context; in fact, it is an indispensable
component of the surrounding verses.Metzger,
in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, argues that
"as regards intrinsic probability, the passage [The Johannine Comma]
makes an awkward break in the sense."Upon
close examination of the immediate context, however, one finds that this
assertion is far from true.For
example, if the Comma is omitted, verse 6 and verse 8 are thrown
together, "which gives a very bald, awkward, and meaningless repetition
of the Spirit's witness twice in immediate succession."Furthermore,
the omission causes the concluding phrase of verse 8 (and these three agree
in one) to contain an unintelligible reference.What
is "that one" (to
en) to
which "these three" are said to agree?In
other words, "that one" in verse 8 which designates One to whom the reader
has already been introduced does not have antecedent presence in the passage."Let
verse 7 stand, and all is clear, and the three earthly witnesses testify
to that aforementioned unity which the Father, Word, and Spirit constitute."The
passage makes absolutely no sense if the
Comma is omitted.The
phrase "in earth" in verse 8 as well as the entire ninth verse would also
have to be knocked out to regain the sense because both infer that the
"witness of God," as promulgated in the Comma,has
already been introduced.
In
a slightly broader immediate context, John has asserted in the previous
six verses that faith is the bond of the believer's spiritual life and
his consequent victory over the world.Such
faith must have a solid warrant, and the truth by which it is to be assured
is none other than the Sonship and Deity of Jesus Christ (cf. I John 5:5,
11, 12, 20).This warrant is first
presented in 5:6, in Jesus' earthly ministry and the witness of the Holy
Ghost speaking by way of inspired men.In
5:7, it comes in the words of the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit,
asserting and confirming by miracles the unity of Christ with God the Father.Thirdly,
the warrant appears in 5:8 through the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction
with Christ's baptism and crucifixion, all of which verify the atoning
work of the Saviour.Finally,
as promulgated in 5:10, the warrant lies in the spiritual consciousness
of the believer himself, certifying to him his divine charge."How
harmonious is all thus if we accept the 7th verse as genuine, but if we
omit it, the very keystone of the arch is wanting, and the crowning proof
that the warrant of our faith is divine (5:9) is struck out."
FAITH'S SOLID WARRANT
The
brunt of the argument against the authenticity of the Johannine Comma
lies within the realm of textual criticism.Unfortunately,
as mentioned, it is one of the few passages included in the Textus Receptus
which
has a weak attestation from the Greek manuscript tradition.As
a result, most modern critics toss it into the wastebasket.An
example of such hasty dismissal can be seen in the United Bible Societies'
fourth edition of The Greek New Testament.In
the critical apparatus, as well as Metzger's accompanying commentary, the
evidence presented is misleading and deceptive to the average reader.One
is led to believe, as Metzger claims, that the passage is absent from virtually
every known Greek manuscript; it is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers;
and it is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions.Though
such assertions may have a ring of truth to them, they are broad generalizations
that result from a biased evaluation of all the evidence. Perhaps the best
approach to constructing a case for the inclusion of the Johannine Comma
involves a point by point refutation of Metzger's arguments, for they bespeak
the opinions of most critical scholars.As
noted, the purpose of this study is not to prove the authenticity of the
Comma,
such a conclusion can only be accepted by faith in the preserved Word of
God.Nonetheless, the external evidence
in favor of the passage is far greater than modern critics would have us
to believe by their tales of the "stupidity of Erasmus."
Metzger's
presentation of the manuscript evidence is misleading.
The
first claim that Metzger makes is that the Comma "is absent from
every known Greek manuscript except eight . . . the eight manuscripts are
as follows . . ."Next,
he proceeds to list the manuscripts, but only catalogues seven (61, 88,
221, 429, 636, 918, 2318).Where
is the eighth manuscript?The critical
apparatus of the UBS4 adds Codex Ottobonianus (629) which dates
to the fourteenth century, but Metzger fails to mention it.One
is forced to wonder about this initial contradiction.Four
of these eight manuscripts contain the Comma written in the margin
(88, 221, 429, 636), while the other four include it as part of the text.
It
is interesting to note that both Metzger and the UBS editors fail to list
the Codex Britannicus as evidence for the Comma.Their
reason for doing this is probably the same reason that all modern textual
critics ignore the codex--they equate it with Codex Monfortianus (61).The
so-called "evidence" for this miscalculation centers around Erasmus, the
man whose Novum Testamentum Graecum was utilized by the AV translators.The
well-known anecdote says that Erasmus was criticized for omitting the Comma
from his first and second editions.He
argued that no Greek manuscripts contained the reading and supposedly challenged
his critic, Edward Lee who charged him with being an Arian for omitting
I John 5:7-8,to produce a manuscript
with the passage.Only then, would
he include it in his edition.Codex
Monfort is supposedly the manuscript that was hastily drawn up to meet
Erasmus' demands; the ink was supposedly still wet when Erasmus received
it.Nevertheless he is said to have
inserted the verse, defending his actions by stating that he had received
a transcript of the Comma from Codex Britannicus (what is believed
to be the Codex Monfort).
First of all, the argument that Erasmus challenged Lee is completely unsound.A
careful perusal of Erasmus' words in his Liber tertius quod respondet
. . . Ed. Lei yields evidence to the contrary:
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.
Erasmus
does not challenge Lee to produce a manuscript.Rather,
he simply argues that Lee can legitimately reproach him with negligence
if and only if he can demonstrate that manuscripts could have consulted
containing I John 5:7-8.As Henk
J. de Jonge states, "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
light of these facts, there never was a manuscript produced to convince
Erasmus.If there had been, Erasmus
would have surely been smart enough to detect such a forgery.
Although
Codex Monfortanius is dated by modern critics to the sixteenth century
(ca. 1520), one must wonder where the reading of I John 5:7-8 came from.It
did not come from Ximene's Polygot, for it was not published until 1522.It
did not come from Erasmus because it does not match his Greek in scores
of places.Rather,
the literal affinities of Monfortanius are with the Syriac Version which
was not known in Europe until after 1552.Besides,
this codex has been dated by Adam Clarke to the thirteenth century.
As
far as Codex Britannicus is concerned, it cannot be equated with the Monfort,
because the respective renderings of I John 5:7-8 are quite different.On
the one hand, the Monfort omits the articles in verse seven (o,
o, to)
and transposes "agion
pneuma."In
verse 8, the articles (to,
to, to),
a conjunction (kai),
and the last phrase (kai
oi treiV eiV to en eisin)
are missing.Britannicus, on the
other hand, includes the articles and the final phrase but omits the adjective
"agion"
in verse 8.Where did Erasmus acquire
the last clause for his third edition?He
surely did not get it from the Compultensian Polygot or Codex Monfort,
but from Britannicus.This is why
Monfortanius "cannot possibly be the same with the Codex Britannicus."At
this point, no date as been assigned to this manuscript.
Metzger's
presentation of evidence from the Early Church Fathers is misleading.
After
promulgating his faulty catalogue of Greek manuscripts containing the Comma,
Metzger claims that "the passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers."Such
a bold assertion is also misleading because Gregory of Nazanzius (a Greek
Church Father from the fourth century), although not directly quoting the
passage, specifically alludes to the passage and objects to the grammatical
structure if the Comma is omitted (Metzger, on the other hand, would
have one to believe that the Greek Church Fathers knew nothing of the passage).Gregory
writes:
What about John then, when
in his Catholic Epistle he says that there are Three that bear witness,
the Spirit and the Water and the Blood?Do
you think he is talking nonsense?First,
because he has ventured to reckon under one numeral things which are not
consubstantial, though you say this ought to be done only in the case of
things which are consubstantial.For
who would assert that these are consubstantial?Secondly,
because he had not been consistent in the way he has happened upon his
terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words
which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your
grammarians have laid down.For what
is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding
One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and
One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you
yourself disclaim in the case of Deity?
In
this brief excursus, Gregory objects to the use of a masculine plural participle
with three neuter nouns ( [7] m:pl = [8] n+n+n ) which, of course, is the
case if the Comma is omitted.In
other words, "Gregory of Nazianzus objected to the omission of 1 John v.7f."
Metzger's
presentation of evidence with regard to the Trinitarian Controversies is
misleading.
Metzger
goes on to claim that if any of the Greek Fathers had known of the Comma,
they would have "most certainly employed it in the Trinitarian controversies
(Sabellian and Arian)."There
is some truth to this statement in that Metzger is referring to specific
controversies that had taken place by A.D. 323 (e.g. Council of Nicea).There
is no extant written evidence that the Comma was ever cited in these
major Trinitarian controversies, but an argument from silence proves nothing.Nonetheless,
Metzger completely ignores the fact that the verse was employed at the
Council of Carthage in A.D. 485;by
doing so, he would have us to believe that I John 5:7-8 was never used
as proof of the Trinity and/or deity of Christ in the numerous debates
that arose and plagued the Church concerning these issues.Prior
to this council,a conflict had arisen
between the Arians (led byKing Huneric
the Vandal) and a group of bishops from North Africa.An
assembly was called at Carthage where I John 5:7-8 was insisted upon by
Eugenius, the spokesman for the African bishops, as he confessed his faith
and the faith of his brethren:
. . .and in order that we
may teach until now, more clearly than light, that the Holy Spirit is now
one divinity with the Father and the Son.It
is proved by the evangelist John, for he says, 'there are three which bear
testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these
three are one.
In
spite of this example, those that oppose the verse remark that the unanimous
testimony of the 400 bishops in no way proves that the Comma was
in all of their copies.Secondly,
they assert that as no dispute took place, but the conference was broken
up immediately; therefore, the Arians did not accept the passage.Charles
Butler, in Horae Biblicae, offered an interesting 12-point rebuttal
to the opposers of the Comma.Such
is a lengthy treatise and will not be employed word for word but adequately
summarized.
Charles
Butler pointed out that the Catholic Bishops were summoned to a conference
where they most certainly expected the tenets of their faith to be attacked
by the Arians (the Arians denied the deity of Jesus Christ).Therefore,
they would have been very careful about what they included in their proposed
confession, seeing as all power was in the hands of their angry Arian adversaries.The
bishops included the Johannine Comma as a first line of defense
for their confession of Christ's deity.If
the Arians could have argued what present-day opposers of the verse say
(The Comma was is no Greek copy and in only a few Lain copies),
what would the bishops have replied?If
we are to believe that they were unable to hold out one Greek copy, no
ancient Latin copy, and no ancient father where the verse could be found,
the Arians could have rightly accused them on the spot of following a spurious
passage and being guilty of palpable falsehood.It
is almost certain that these bishops would not have exposed themselves
to such immediate and indelible infamy.They
volunteered to include the Comma in their confession despite the
existence of many long treatises that had been written by the ancient defenders
of the Trinity in which the verse had not been mentioned.Such
treatises would have served as ample evidence, but the bishops cited I
John 5:7-8 instead.Obviously, they
had no fear that any claim of spuriousness could be legitimately dashed
upon them.If the verse were attacked,
the bishops could have produced Greek copies, ancient Latin copies, and
ancient fathers in its defense.The
Comma,
however, was not attacked by the Arians and the Catholic bishops (302 of
them) were exiled to different parts of Africa, exposed to the insults
of their enemies, and carefully deprived of all temporal and spiritual
comforts of life.It is ludicrous
to think that these men could undergo such persecution and suffering for
their belief of the deity of Jesus Christ only to insert a spurious verse
into God's Word as their first line of defense.The
African bishops must have had weighty testimony to the Comma in
their manuscripts.As a result, they
were able to successfully employ the passage as they defended their faith
before the Arian accusers.
Metzger's
presentation of evidence from ancient versions is misleading.
Metzger
follows up with yet another misleading claim in his textual commentary.He
claims that "the passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient
versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethioptic, Arabic, Slavonic), except
the Latin . . ."This
allegation is misleading because, as Scrivener asserts, "scarcely any Armenian
codex exhibits it, and only a few recent Slavonic copies, the margin of
a Moscow edition of 1663 being the first to represent it."F.
H. A. Scrivener opposes the inclusion of the verse, and in that aspect,
agrees with Metzger.However, he
does admit that it appears in a few copies of the Armenian and Slavonic,
both being ancient version.Metzger's
blanket statement overlooks this fact.
As
far as the Old Syriac is concerned, there is good evidence that the Comma
appeared in its early manuscripts.First
of all, it must be noted that when Metzger or the UBS editors refer to
the Old Syriac, they are simply alluding to a collation of "five printed
editions [sys(1910), syc(1904), syp(1920),
syh(1909), syr(1788)(1803)(1889)], each of which
is based on one or two MSS, or a slender portion of all extant Syriac MSS."
Just because I John 5:7-8 does not appear in any of these five editions
does not mean that it was not present in any Syriac copies.In
fact, the evidence yields quite the contrary.For
example, Jaqub of Edessa, a well-known church writer from the seventh century
who wrote in Syriac, inscribed, "The soul and the body and the mind which
are sanctified through three holy things; through water and blood and Spirit,
and through the Father and the Son and the Spirit."Here,
Jaqub is clearly making reference to the three earthly witnesses in conjunction
with the three heavenly witnesses as promulgated in I John 5:7-8 with the
Comma
inserted.It must have been in some
Syriac copies of his day in order for him to be able to make a legitimate
allusion to it.
Tremellius'
Grammatica
Chaldea Et Syra (1569) is also of notable importance with regard to
Metzger's blanket generalization of the Syriac version.Tremellius
translated the Comma from Greek into Syriac and placed it in the
margin of his codex, as most modern accounts boldly announce, but he left
a blank space in the text where the passage should appear.Modern
scholars such as Scrivener and Metzger do not mention this.If
Tremellius was so sure about the spuriousness of the verse, why did he
take the time to translate it?Better
yet, why did he place it in the margin, hesitate to disturb the verse numbering,
and leave a blank space for it?Tremellius
must have been aware of its presence in the Syriac tradition.He
himself wrote:
But because it was omitted
not only in the printed version, but only in the manuscript Heidelberg
codex, nor was read in all the old Greek codices, I did not dare to insert
it into the text.So in order that
there might not be a disturbance of the verses, and so that their numbers
may correspond to the numbers on the verses of the Greek text, I have passed
from the sixth to the eighth verse.
As
Maynard correctly concludes:
How often is a blank space
provided for 1 John v.7f in an English translation today, let alone a Greek
edition?The four questions together
could indicate that Tremellius must have had doubts.His
actions are not in accord with his words.Perhaps,
with a blank space, he wanted not only to retain the correspondence with
numbers but to ensure that a future Syriac editor would not overlook this
spot.(Modern editors do not hesitate
over a 'disturbance of the verses.'They
merely split verse six in half.)
Another
Syriac edition worthy of consideration is Gutbier's Lexicon Syricum
concerdatntiale omnes N.T. Syriaci which appeared in 1664.This
version contains the Comma as well as Acts 8:37, another non-majority
reading from the Textus Receptus that is commonly omitted by modern
scholars.Also, of notable importance,
is the fact that the Old Syriac has Textus Receptus readings for
Matthew 6:13; Luke 2:33; 23:42; and John 9:35, against the UBS4.It
is very possible that the Syriac also agreed with the Textus Receptus
on its rendering of I John 5:7-8 as well.After
all, as Maynard shows, several indexes include numerous Syriac manuscripts
as containing the fifth chapter of I John, some even dating back to the
sixth century.Unfortunately, these
have been neglected, and it remains unknown as to whether or not they contain
the Comma.Therefore,
Metzger cannot legitimately claim that the passage is not found in the
Old Syriac version, especially since he has obviously not evaluated all
the evidence.Jaqub of Edessa, Tremellius,
and Gutbier had to get the Comma from somewhere.
Metzger's
presentation of the evidence from the Old Latin Version is misleading.
Metzger
also says that the Comma does not appear in the Old Latin in its
earliest form (Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine).This
too, is a deceptive statement, for both Tertullian (ca. 200 A.D) and Cyprian
(ca. 250) cite or make an allusion to the passage.If
they did not have it in their Latin manuscripts, where did they get it
from?Tertullian is not cited as
a witness to the Comma in the critical apparatus of the UBS4.However,
less than a century after the death of John the Apostle (possibly as early
as A.D. 200), Tertullian wrote:
. . .which distributes the
Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons--the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three however, not in condition, but
in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect;
yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch
as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned,
under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
This
is a clear reference to the teaching found in the Comma.On
another occasion, Tertullian, according to John Gill, quotes the passage
in question.Athanasius
(ca. 350) is likewise not mentioned in the UBS' critical apparatus.However,
according to R.E. Brown, Athanasius quotes the passage at least three times
in his works.Around
A.D. 250, Cyprian, as noted, wrote, "The Lord says, 'I and the Father are
one, and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'"Cyprian,
less than two hundred years after the writing of I John, is expressly quoting
the Johannine Comma.He must
have got it from an early form of the Old Latin in spite of Metzger's claims.It
is interesting that even he admits that "Our information concerning the
Old Latin translation of the New Testament is very defective . . ."
The
Old Latin translations of the New Testament are very important in establishing
the authenticity of I John 5:7-8, for Latin was the major language up through
the Middle Ages.The Old Latin is
not the same as the Latin of Jerome's Vulgate, which by the way, does include
the Comma.The Old Latin predates
the Vulgate text and is found well into the Middle Ages.Did
the Old Latin consistently contain the Johannine Comma?For
the answer to this question, one must turn to the Tepl Codex, a fourteenth
century manuscript written in Middle High German.This
Codex is significant because "the Tepl Codex actually predates a pre-Jerome
text from a non-Vulgate MS, w."Metzger
acknowledges that w contains "Old Latin readings in Acts and the
Catholic Epistles."It
comes as no surprise that the Tepl contains the Comma exactly as
it is found in the Textus Receptus.As
Maynard
argues, its text "has a remarkable longevity into the 15th century.This
indicates that German MSS ought not to be dismissed as mere copies of Latin
Vulgate MSS."
According to Elliot, the Tepl comes from the Old Latin and has its affinity
with w (an Old Latin manuscript from the 15th century).Latin
manuscript w is dated to the 15th century while the Tepl is dated
to the 14th.Had this been reversed,
the German Tepl would be regarded with much less value.But,
as it is, this Codex actually predates a pre-Jerome Latin text (w).The
Tepl and the Old Lain manuscripts together "provide pre-Reformation support
for non-majority readings of the Authorized Version."The
Tepl not only contains I John 5:7-8 as it is found in the Textus Receptus,
but Acts 8:37; 9:5-6; and 15:34, all of which are omitted in modern English
versions.
The
Old Latin from which the Tepl descended is also found in the manuscripts
of the Waldensians.History teaches
that the Waldensians were those Christians who lived in the Vaudois valley
in northern Italy.The Waldensian
Church has been dated back to about A.D. 120.Their
Old Itala Bible was translated in the early second century.The
Waldensians were severely persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church between
the fourth and thirteenth centuries.As
Jack Moorman argues, "Research into the text and history of the Waldensian
Bible has shown that it is a literal descendant of the Old Itala.In
other words, the Itala has come down to us in Waldensian form, and firmly
supports the Traditional Text."Gail
Riplinger, goes on to promulgate, "It [the Waldensian Bible] was a translation
of the true text into the rather rude Low Latin of the second century .
. . the Bible of the Waldensians was used to carry the true text throughout
Europe."
The
translators of the AV 1611 King James Bible did not simply include the
Comma
because
it was in Erasmus' edition of the Greek New Testament; they had four Bibles
on their tables that had come under heavy Waldensian influence.All
four contained the Johannine Comma as contained in the Textus
Receptus.The first of these
was the Geneva Bible which was translated in 1557 at Geneva, the center
of the Swiss Reformation.The basis
for the Geneva Bible was the French Olivetan which was translated by Olivetan,
a Waldensian pastor and relative of John Calvin.This
fact illustrates "how readily the two streams of descent of the Received
Text, through the Greek East and the Waldensian West, ran together."Secondly,
the AV translators utilized the Greek text of Theodore Beza, Calvin's successor
at Geneva.With Calvin's help, Beza
brought out a later edition of the Textus Receptus.Wilkinson
argues:
This later edition of the
Received Text is in reality a Greek New Testament brought out under Waldensian
influence.Unquestionably, the leaders
of the Reformation -- German, French, and English--were convinced that
the Received Text was the genuine New Testament, not only by its own irresistible
history and internal evidence, but also because it matched with the Received
Text which in Waldensian form came down from the days of the apostles
[emphasis mine].
The third Bible influenced by the Waldensians and
utilized by the AV translators was the Italian Diodati.Diodati,
an Italian, succeeded Beza in the chair of Theology at Geneva and translated
the received text into Italian."This
version was adopted by the Waldenses, although there was in use at that
time a Waldensian Bible in their own peculiar language."The
fourth Bible of interest is the German Tepl which, as previously mentioned,
was a translation of a pre-Jerome Latin text into German."This
Tepl manuscript represented a translation of the Waldensian Bible into
the German which was spoken before the days of the Reformation."In
addition to these four Bibles, there is reason to believe that the King
James translators had access to at least six Waldensian Bibles written
in the old Waldensian vernacular, all of which contained the disputed passage.
In
relation to the Old Latin, Waldensians, and the Johannine Comma, it
is only appropriate to summarize a rather lengthy discourse byFrederick
Nolan.In Integrity of the Greek
Vulgate, he argues that the Old Latin derived its name from the Italick
Church (distinguished from Roman Catholic).The
principal copies of this version have been preserved in that diocese, the
metropolitan church of which was situated at Milan.Remains
of the primitive Old Latin version can be found in the early translations
made by the Waldensians, who were the lineal descendants of the Italick
church.They asserted their independence
against the usurpations of the Church of Rome, and consequently, enjoyed
the free use of the Scriptures.All
of this provided Nolan "with abundant proof on that point to which his
inquiry was chiefly directed; as it has supplied him with the unequivocal
testimony of a truly apostolical branch of the primitive church, that the
celebrated text of the heavenly witnesses was adopted in the version which
prevailed in the Latin Church, previously to the introduction of the modern
Vulgate."Therefore,
claims that the Comma made its way into the King James Version by
way of the Roman Catholic Vulgate are false.
The
Old Latin was translated in the second century, but from what?Seeing
as the New Testament was originally written in Greek, the translators had
to have copies of Greek papyri not too far descended from the original
autographs.It is interesting to
note every single one of the papyrus manuscripts are silent with regard
to I John 5:7-8.The passage has
been lost from every one of them.There
is no way to know if they contained the Comma, but the translators
of the Old Latin had to get it from somewhere.Studies
show that the principal papyrus manuscripts used by modern textual critics
as allies of the minority text of a
and B (P45, P66, and P75 in particular)
agree with the Textus Receptus to a greater extent.Together,
these three papyri agree with the Textus Receptus in 20 places as
opposed to 18 places with Vaticanus and 4 places with Sinaiticus.It
is conceivable that these manuscripts once contained the Comma.Besides,
Maynard shows that at least 6000 Old Latin manuscripts have been neglected
and consequently remain unexamined.It
is very probable that many of these also contain the Comma.Dogmatic
conclusions, much like Metzger's, cannot be drawn without evaluating all
the evidence.
The
Johannine
Comma contains one word that is worthy of lexical analysis with regard
to the issue at hand—logoV.This
is a well-known term employed with respect to Jesus Christ in Johannine
Christology.The second person of
the Trinity is referred to as the "Word."Such
a metaphor is unique to the Apostle John and can also be found in John
1:1, 14; I John 1:1; and Revelation 19:13.This
fact, in and of itself, argues heavily for the authenticity of the verse,
for as Robertson admits, the occurrence of the metaphor in the three aforementioned
books is "an incidental argument for identity of authorship."LogoV,
being a favorite of John's with reference to Christ, was appropriate to
use when referring to Christ's divine eternality with God the Father and
the Holy Spirit as is the case in the
Comma.On
the other hand, if the passage is an interpolation that was added to prove
the trinity, the forger almost certainly would not have employedlogoV overuioV as
found in the common Trinitarian triage of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
(cf. Matthew 28:19).This issue of
tradition, however, will be discussed more in depth under the traditional
analysis.
Syntactical Analysis
Of
significant interest with regard to the Johannine Comma is the issue
of syntax.Plainly speaking, if the
Comma
is omitted, John's word choice seems extremely awkward and unusual with
respect to the general rules of the Greek language.The
masculine article, numeral, and participle (There are three that bear witness)
are made to agree with three neuter nouns (Spirit, water, and blood).As
Robert Dabney argues, "This is an insuperable and very bald grammatical
difficulty."John
most definitely would not have made such a connection, for his structure
and syntax are altogether simple and understandable.In
attempting to excuse this awkward choice of words, Daniel Wallace states
"the fact that the author has personified water and blood, turning them
into witnesses along with the Spirit, may be enough to account for the
masculine gender."However,
the personification of the water and blood does not become evident unless
the Comma is present.It is
true that the Spirit (pneuma),
a neuter word, is sometimes used in connection with masculinity because
the author is referring to the Holy Spirit as a person, a member of the
Godhead; but inanimate objects are rarely, if at all, "masculinatized"
for the purpose of personification.Besides,
Wallace's answer does not explain verse 6.There, Pneuma, as
the third person of the Trinity, is not provided as a masculine to personalize
the Spirit's witness; it remain neuter.
If
the disputed verse is allowed to remain, the three neuter nouns agree with
the two masculines (Father & Word)
and one neuter of verse 7 (Holy Spirit),
and, according to the rules of Greek syntax, the masculines among the group
control the gender over a neuter connected to them.Such
is termed the "power of attraction" and is common throughout the New Testament
and John's writings in particular.As
previously noted, Gregory of Nazanzius, an early Greek Church Father, objected
to the omission of the Comma for similar syntactical reasons (ca.
385).
Structural
Analysis
From the above structural analysis, a contrast of
two groups of three becomes apparent.It
is common scriptural usage to present solemn truths or warnings in groups
of two, three, or four.Examples
of this include Proverbs 30; Amos 1:3, 6, 9, 13 etc.; the visions of the
butler and baker in Genesis 40; and the combination of Christ's words in
Matthew 12:14.It is in accord with
Biblical usage, therefore, to expect that in I John 5, "there are three
that bear witness" will be repeated at least twice.
The Comma
is also structurally important with reference to verse 9.I
John 5:7 describes the witness of God; I John 5:8 describes the witness
of men."If we receive the witness
of men, the witness of God is greater" (5:9).Without
the Comma, 5:9 has no antecedent and consequently, makes no sense.
Rhetorical Analysis
In
the realm of rhetorical criticism, the Johannine Comma seems to
conform to the Apostle John's literary style.As
far as tone is concerned, "there reigns throughout the Epistle a firm and
manly tone, the perfect opposite of all effeminate and sentimental enthusiasm"
(e.g. 1:6-10; 2:19; 3:6-10; 4:1-2; etc.).This
tone is likewise prevalent in the Comma which tersely presents the
truth of an important doctrine, leaving the reader with no room to question.
John's
writings are also characterized by contrasts.According
to Tidwell, "the ordinary contrasts cover almost the same words and ideas
of the Gospel such as life and death, light and darkness, righteousness
and unrighteousness with several others and with the addition of Christ
and anti-Christ."The Comma,
in particular, feeds the contrast which John creates between Jesus Christ
and Antichrist (cf. 2:18-23).Jesus
Christ is God (cf. 5:7-8).Antichrist,
on the other hand, is the one who denies this fact (cf. 2:22).
One
final aspect of John's style that is worthy of consideration with respect
to the Comma, is parallelism.I
John is filled with both positive and negative parallelism.For
example, the Apostle writes in 1:5, "God is light and in Him is no darkness
at all," and in 1:9, "Forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness."I
John 5:7-8, the Comma included, also contains parallelism, a synthetic
type to be exact.The three heavenly
witnesses (Father, Word, and Holy Ghost) and the three earthly witnesses
(Spirit, water, and blood) are actually the same three witnesses.As
Oliver Greene argues, "Therefore, since the Trinity - the Father, Word,
and the Holy Ghost - bear record in heaven, it is these three who also
bear record in earth."In
other words, the promulgation of the three earthly witnesses serves to
expand or elaborate on the role of the three heavenly witnesses.The
earthly witnesses are sourced in the heavenly witnesses.The
"blood" refers to the blood of God (cf. Acts 20:28) while the "water" is
a reference to Jesus Christ at his baptism.The
"Spirit," of course, is the third member of the Godhead.This
particular type of parallelism is very common with John and could conceivably
be called a chiasmus in this particular instance.
A. Father
B. Word
<------------------------------Heavenly Witnesses
C. Holy Ghost
C'. Spirit
B'. Water
<------------------------------Earthly Witnesses
A'. Blood
If
the Comma is omitted, the chiasmic structure falls apart.
Altogether,
the Johannine Comma reflects John's rhetorical style.Fuller
points out,"The connexion of the
passage is altogether in its favor.The
phraseology is that of the Apostle John; so that if the words are not his,
it must have been the most successful imitation of him that can be imagined."
Tradition Analysis
With
regard to tradition criticism, it is the tradition that the Comma
does
reflect that is significant.Had
a redactor added the passage to argue for the Trinity, he would
have almost certainly utilized the common Trinitarian formula as found
in Matthew 28:19, "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."This
formula "became part of a very early tradition in the church."It
was employed in the Didache (7.1-4) as well as Justin's Apology
(1.61).The strength of forgery is
similarity not uniqueness.Ruckman
argues, "What would have possibly been gained by inventing a different
formula than the one given in Matthew 28, which every Christian knew by
heart?"Also,
Christ is referred to as the "Son of God" numerous times in I John.A
true forger would have no doubt utilized "Son" instead of "Word" so as
to further disguise his redactional efforts.
Theological Analysis
The
theological significance of the Johannine Comma goes without saying.As
noted, it is the only clear affirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity
in all of Scripture.Thus, when James
White argues that "the reality is that the amount of variation between
the two most extremely different manuscripts of the New Testament would
not fundamentally alter the message of the Scriptures," he is wrong.When
John Ankerberg concludes that textual differences only apply to 1% of the
text, and none of them are doctrinally important, he is incorrect.The
Trinity is a doctrine that sets Christianity apart from all other religions—one
God in three persons.It is interesting
to note Erickson's argument for the Trinity in his Christian Theology.He
begins by stating, "One text which has traditionally been appealed to as
documenting the Trinity is I John 5:7 . . .unfortunately, the textual basis
is so weak . . . If there is a biblical basis for the Trinity, it must
be sought elsewhere."He
then proceeds over the next five pages to exegete and systematize numerous
passages that imply this doctrine.He
concludes, "Although the doctrine of the Trinity is not expressly stated,
the Scripture, particularly the New Testament, contains so many suggestions
of the deity and unity of the three persons that we can understand why
the church formulated the doctrine, and conclude that they were right in
so doing."It
seems rather strange to base a fundamental Christian doctrine upon suggestion.Perhaps
this is why so many cults (Jehovah's Witnesses) are able to manipulate
the Bible so as to assert that Jesus was not God.After
all, the Watchtower Bible of the Jehovah's Witnesses rejects the Comma.
Homiletical Analysis
It
is the author's opinion that the Johannine Comma is authentic Holy
Scripture.Therefore, it can and
should be preached from.Two approaches
can be taken—an exegetical and a topical.An
exegetical approach might utilize the surrounding context.A
possible outline might look something like this:
Proposition: In
I John 5:4-10, John promulgates two facts about biblical faith.
I.THE
FIRST FACT:Biblical faith overcomes
the world - 5:4-5
A.The
inevitability ofovercoming – 5:4
1.Stated
– "For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world."
2.Elaborated
– "and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith."
B.The
identity of the overcomer – 5:5
1.What
he does – "Who is he that overcometh the world"
2.What
he believes – "but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God."
II.THE
SECOND FACT:Biblical faith is sanctioned.
A.Sanctioned
by truth – 5:6
B.Sanctioned
by three heavenly witnesses (Father, Word, Holy Ghost) – 5:7
C.Sanctioned
by three earthly witnesses (Spirit, water, blood) – 5:8
D.A
Parenthetical Explanation – 5:9
1.The
supremacy of the witness of God – "If we receive the witness of men,
witness
of God is greater."
2.The
clarification of the witness of God – "for this is the witness of God which
he
hath
testified of his Son."
E.Sanctioned
by the believer's spiritual consciousness – 5:10
1.Stated
positively – "He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in
himself"
2.Stated
negatively – "he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he
believeth
not the record that God gave of his Son."