The 'Johannine Comma', does it belong in the Bible?

[Hobie]

Lets first start with a explanation of the Comma Johanneum and what is claimed. The Comma Johanneum is a comma (a short clause) contained in most translations of the First Epistle of 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.
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."
The resulting passage is an explicit reference to the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Now it does not appear in some Greek manuscripts, nor in the passage as quoted by some of the early Church Fathers. Some claim the words crept into the Latin text of the New Testament during the Middle Ages, "[possibly] as one of those medieval glosses but were then written into the text itself by a careless copyist.

 

[Hobie]

Now here is some intereting things I have come across, first lets start with St. Jerome who is best known for his translation of the Bible into Latin, the Vulgate:

'Jerome was commissioned by Damasus, the bishop of Rome, to prepare a standard Latin translation of the Holy Scriptures to replace the former Latin translations which had grown in multiplicity by the late 4th century. Jerome did this, utilizing the Greek as his source for revision of the Latin New Testament for his Vulgate.14 At one point in his work, Jerome noted that the trinitarian reading of I John 5:7 was being removed from Greek manuscripts which he had come across, a point which he specifically mentions. Speaking of the testimony of these verses he writes,

"Just as these are properly understood and so translated faithfully by interpreters into Latin without leaving ambiguity for the readers nor [allowing] the variety of genres to conflict, especially in that text where we read the unity of the trinity is placed in the first letter of John, where much error has occurred at the hands of unfaithful translators contrary to the truth of faith, who have kept just the three words water, blood and spirit in this edition omitting mention of Father, Word and Spirit in which especially the catholic faith is strengthened and the unity of substance of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is attested."[Jerome, Prologue to the Canonical Epistles, from the text of the prologue appended to Codex Fuldensis, Trans. T. Caldwell.]

Thus, we see that Jerome specifically mentioned that this verse was being removed from Greek manuscripts in his day. Logically, we can suppose that for him to recognize the absence of this verse as an omission from the Greek texts, he must have been aware of Greek manuscripts which contained the Comma in the time of his preparation of the Vulgate for the general epistles (395-400 AD), a time much earlier than is suggested by the dating of currently known Comma-containing Greek mss.

...we must note the presence of this verse in the Old Latin version. The Old Latin (called such because it predates the Vulgate of Jerome) dates to around the middle of the 2nd century... The African Old Latin textual tradition exists for us today as little more than quotations in the works of early Latin patristic writers, having been displaced by later Latin editions, primarily the Vulgate. However, this was the Latin version which we find used by such men as Tertullian and Cyprian, both of whom were North African authors who either quote or strongly allude to the Johannine Comma in certain of their writings... Even though we possess no actual copies of the Vulgate from within a century after its production, we can easily surmise both from the aforementioned statement of Jerome (indicating his support for the verse), as well as the secondary witness of several works which cite I John 5:7-8 and which likely used the Vulgate Latin from during that "missing" century31, that the Comma appeared in his original Vulgate edition. '
Defense of the Johannine Comma

 

[Hobie]

And there is more, as there are others known to have quoted the Comma. We see Cyprian (258 AD) who writes: "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'."Tertullian around 200 AD makes the statement concerning the Trinity:

"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are one essence, not one Person, as it is said, 'I and my Father are One,' in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number."

Idacius Clarus of Spain, cited it around 350 AD. Priscillian (385 AD) cites the Comma: As John says "and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh, the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus. "Additionally, Cassian (435 AD), Cassiodorus (580 AD), and many others cited the Comma such as Fulgentius, the bishop of Ruspe in North Africa around the turn of the 6th century, who both cited the verse in his own writings, and pointedly argued in his treatise against the Arians that Cyprian had specifically cited it. Athanasius, around 350 AD, cited the verse in his writing against the Arians.

 

[Hobie]

So lets go to the Bible, Christ says
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" in Matthew 28:19

We see the three being mentioned to Mary:
Luke 1:34-35 King James Version (KJV)
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Christ gets challenged constantly as to whether he is the Son of God, which to the Jews meant equal with him.:
John 10:24 King James Version (KJV)
24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.

The Pharisees were constantly on the lookout to accuse that only God could do what Christ was claiming or going about and doing:
Mark 2:5-11 King James Version (KJV)
5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.
6 But there was certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,
7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
8 And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts?
9 Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?
10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)
11 I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.

Christ did not shy away from the challenge, as we can see, but took it head on.

 

[Yeshua1]

So lets go to the Bible, Christ says
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" in Matthew 28:19

We see the three being mentioned to Mary:
Luke 1:34-35 King James Version (KJV)
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Christ gets challenged constantly as to whether he is the Son of God, which to the Jews meant equal with him.:
John 10:24 King James Version (KJV)
24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.

The Pharisees were constantly on the lookout to accuse that only God could do what Christ was claiming or going about and doing:
Mark 2:5-11 King James Version (KJV)
5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.
6 But there was certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,
7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
8 And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts?
9 Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?
10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)
11 I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.

Christ did not shy away from the challenge, as we can see, but took it head on.

This passage, the one in John aboutwoman in adultery, and the ending of mark best left to those who are really textually wise and understand both sides of the arguments!
Would not use either way to either support kjv, or to bash modern versions!

 

[Origen]

Part One - Jerome's Prologue

"Just as these are properly understood and so translated faithfully by interpreters into Latin without leaving ambiguity for the readers nor [allowing] the variety of genres to conflict, especially in that text where we read the unity of the trinity is placed in the first letter of John, where much error has occurred at the hands of unfaithful translators contrary to the truth of faith, who have kept just the three words water, blood and spirit in this edition omitting mention of Father, Word and Spirit in which especially the catholic faith is strengthened and the unity of substance of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is attested."[Jerome, Prologue to the Canonical Epistles, from the text of the prologue appended to Codex Fuldensis, Trans. T. Caldwell.]

There are a number problems with the prologue that ought to be considered but are not addressed or even point out out for that matter. When certain facts are left out or distorted a clear understanding is impossible.

(1) Scholars since ca. 1700s have doubted the authorship of the prologue.

(2) Codex Fuldensis dates between 541-546. Jerome finished the Vulgate ca. 400. Thus Codex Fuldensis is around 140 years removed from the Vulgate.

(3) Codex Fuldensis (and Codex Amiatinus - the two earliest manuscripts) omits the Comma.

(4) Let's also be clear concerning what the prologue actually states. The prologue does NOT state:

Jerome specifically mentioned that this verse was being removed from Greek manuscripts in his day

The prologue states "unfaithful translators... ...have kept just the three words water, blood and spirit in this edition omitting mention of Father, Word and Spirit in which especially the catholic faith is strengthened and the unity of substance of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is attested."

The prologue states "in this edition omitting." It nowhere claims "this verse was being removed from Greek manuscripts." That claim completely false.

(5) Even if we assume Jerome was the author of the prologue there still is no evidence in the Greek New Testament tradition that the Comma was part of the text, no evidence it was removed, and no evidence the claim in the prologue is true.

we must note the presence of this verse in the Old Latin version. The Old Latin (called such because it predates the Vulgate of Jerome) dates to around the middle of the 2nd century

(1) We have no Old Latin manuscripts dating back to the 2nd century.

(2) The earliest Old Latin manuscripts containing the Comma date ca. 7th century. They are more than 500 years removed from the 2nd century.

(3) Even if we assume that the Old Latin text goes back to the 2nd century, there is no manuscript evidence the Comma was part of the Old Latin text. It is nothing short of wishful thinking.

Some claim the words crept into the Latin text of the New Testament during the Middle Ages

If by some is meant the vast majority of scholars, then the answer is yes without a doubt. The information given in these posts do nothing to refute that view. In fact once critical information, information which not supplied by the author, is laid out the reasons why scholars hold that view becomes clear.

There is also another problem. From a text critical perspective, it is a massively poor idea to even think of correcting the Greek text from the Latin text.

 

[Rob_BW]

Personally, I've yet to be convinced.

 

[Origen]

Personally, I've yet to be convinced.

That it does belong or doesn't belong in the text? Sorry I am unclear which you mean.

 

[Rob_BW]

That it does belong or doesn't belong in the text? Sorry I am unclear which you mean.

That it belongs.

 

[Origen]

That it belongs.

Thank you.

 

[HankD]

it belongs...

 

[tyndale1946]

That it belongs.

I too, don't question the Johannine Comma, it belongs... Brother Glen

 

[MartyF]

Should study Bibles exist?

If you think study bibles are ok, then the Comma should definitely exist.

 

[Origen]

Part Two - The Comma

And there is more, as there are others known to have quoted the Comma. We see Cyprian (258 AD) who writes: "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'.

Just as with Jerome's prologue, there are a number of problems with this citation from Cyprian. This is the Comma:

ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσὶν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. καὶ τρεῖς εἰσὶν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ, τὸ Πνεῦμα, καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ, καὶ τὸ αἷμα· καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἓν εἰσιν.

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

The sections in bold are found in the Greek text. It is the section in red which is in disputed. This information is necessary to know exactly what is and what is not the Comma. The Greek text has "For there are three that bear record the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood, and these three agree in one." This is no dispute concerning that.

(1) Cyprian has "the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." The Comma has "the Father, Word, and the Holy Spirit." Also note in the Latin before each noun there is an "and" (= et). The Greek text does not.

(2) The clause "and these three are one" (= καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν) appears in 1 John 5:8. It is part of the text and does not require the Comma.

(3) Specifically note what Cyprian does not have: (1) "For there are three that bear record in heaven," and (2) "the Spirit, and the Water, and the Blood, and these three agree in one."

(4) As we did with Jerome let's assume Cyprian did quote at least part of the Comma. Again, from a text critical perspective, it is a massively poor idea to even think of correcting the Greek text by following a Church father.

Priscillian (385 AD) cites the Comma: As John says "and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh, the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus.

Priscillian (4th century) is the first undisputed citations of the Comma.

Idacius Clarus of Spain

Idacius was an adversary of Priscillian and dates to the 4th century.

Cassian

Who is Cassian? Cannot find a source.

Cassiodorus

He does, but a 6th century Latin source.

Fulgentius

He does, but a 6th century Latin source.

So at best what we have is nothing more than some late Latin sources. Just as with the Latin manuscripts, the evidence shows the Comma comes into the text by way of Latin sources.

 

[HankD]

So at best what we have is nothing more than some late Latin sources. Just as with the Latin manuscripts, the evidence shows the Comma comes into the text by way of Latin sources.

or preserves it.

 

[Origen]

or preserves it.

That can only mean you would allow the Greek text to be corrected using the Latin manuscripts and the Latin fathers.

 

[HankD]

That can only mean you would allow the Greek text to be corrected using the Latin manuscripts and the Latin fathers.

not exactly because there are late Greek mss in the original copyist or correction hand supporting them though late they may be.

 

[Origen]

not exactly because there are late Greek mss in the original copyist or correction hand supporting them though late they may be.

Could you please named for me the first Greek manuscript to have the Comma in the body of the text and its date?

 

[HankD]

Could you please named for me the first Greek manuscript to have the Comma in the body of the text and its date?

Montfortianus 1250 and yes i now the objections.
Ottobonianus 14th century per NA27.

 

[Origen]

Montfortianus 1250 and yes i now the objections.

I am sorry but it is not the first. GA 629 is the first to have the Comma in the body of the text and it is dated to 1362.

Since this is the earliest Greek manuscript with the Comma in the body of the text, meaning there is no other Greek manuscript source which is ealrier, what do you think could have been the copyist source for the Comma?