Against Dogmatic KJV-Onlyism: Three Debates

The Hoffner/Ferrando-Snapp Debate:
Should the Interpolation Known as the
Comma Johanneum Be Regarded
As Scripture?

     Earlier this year I had the pleasure of participating in three cordial debates online.  In the first one, in which Mike Hollner and Mike Ferrando also participated (and for which Donny Budinsky served as moderator), I defended the idea that the Comma Johanneum in First John 5:7 is not a genuine part of the First John and should not be regarded as part of Scripture.  The data in my earlier research on this textual variant came in handy (i.e., my presentation of the Greek manuscripts that contain, or do not contain, the Comma, my analysis of Cyprian's apparent (but not actual) use of the Comma and legitimate patristic references to it, an explanation of how the Comma originated in the Western branch of the Old Latin, and additional Comma-centric resources.    

    In the second debate, - billed as "The Great King-James-Only Debate" - I defend the premise that there are imperfections in the King James Version, against brother Will Kinney who argued that the KJV is 100% perfect.  Donny Budinsky was our host on his channel Standing For Truth.  We investigated two shortcomings in the KJV in the Old Testament and then examined some flaws in the KJV New Testament.

The Kinney-Snapp Debate:
How To Repair Errors in the KJV

  In the third debate, moderated by Dwayne Green, I defend the premise that the KJV contains some non-original features (focusing on six specific passages in the New Testament) against brother Nick Sayers.  Those six passages were (1) Matthew 25:13, (2) Matthew 8:15, (3) Luke 2:22, (4) Eph 3:9, (5) Col 1:6, and (6) Acts 15:34.

    I am confident that viewers of all three debates will be educated and edified.  Each  debate can be accessed by clicking on the pictures.  

The Sayers-Snapp Debate:
Should We Usurp the Original Text?

The Role of Tradition in New Testament Textual Criticism

            Yesterday, Joshua Gibbs of the Talking Christianity podcast hosted a round-table discussion on the subject of the role of tradition in New Testament textual criticism, with guests Jeff Riddle (representing a Confessional Bibliologist approach), Peter Gurry (representing a Reasoned Eclectic app, and myself (representing an Equitable Eclectic approach).  A looong discussion commenced.  Here it is in two parts.  (At one point my internet connection died, but then it got better.)

Part One:

And Part Two: 

Sit back, grab some popcorn, and enjoy!

Here is the text of my closing statement:

          In closing, I’d like to briefly consider three different approaches to the role of tradition in the compilation of the text of the New Testament. 

          One view is to look at how much agreement there is, along all transmission-lines, and conclude, “Textual variants do not matter.  Everyone agrees that you’ve got the basics of the gospel if you use the Textus Receptus.  So let’s use that, for the sake of stability.” 

          Another approach is to focus on the disagreements.  A person might say, “This is very complicated, and we just can’t tell what the original readings are.  The safest course of action is to just go on using what the church has traditionally used.” 

          If one defines “the church” in terms of what emerged from the Reformation, that approach will provoke the adoption of the Textus Receptus.  If one defines “the church” in a wider sense, the traditional Greek text is the Byzantine Text.  Ecclesiastical approval is on its side.

          But both of those approaches are basically appeals to authority:  authority in the form of tradition.  And an appeal to authority is not the same as an appeal to evidence.  A reading is authoritative because it is original – not simply because it is thought to be original.  Except for scribal blunders, practically all major readings were thought to be original by somebody; that is why they are in the manuscripts.  It takes more than being accepted by someone to vindicate a reading.

          When dogmatic statements are used instead of arguments from evidence, it’s like saying, “We have been using mumpsimus, so mumpsimus is what should be said.”  But readings do not become authoritative by being used.  An original reading is authoritative at the point of its inspired creation.   And scribal corruptions are never authoritative, because they are not inspired – no matter how many people like them.       

          There is also a third view, in which someone says, “If ecclesiastical usage is what endows a reading with authority, then all readings are valid, because they all have at least a little bit of ecclesiastical usage in their favor,” and this provokes a temptation to clutter the margins with a multitude of textual variants.  Not only does this render the text more unstable than ever, inviting readers to pick and choose, but it is the exact opposite of what textual critics are supposed to do, which is, make decisions about textual contests. 

          I suggest that tradition does have a valid role, though, in certain cases:

          ● if two competing textual variants both have strong external support, and

          ● they convey two different messages, and

          ● neither is shown by internal considerations to be non-original, and

          ● one or both readings says something that is not confirmed in other passages,

that is a situation that merits a footnote. 

          But which reading goes into the text, and which one goes into the margin?  After those qualifications are met, there is something to be said for the principle that possession is nine-tenth of the law.   If one reading consistently dominates the other, in terms of widespread and longstanding use, then, instead of having a relatively brief Council of Bishops to break the tie, we have a very long Council of Use.  This approach might not resolve every case, but it will help keep textual instability to a minimum, without giving tradition the right to veto the original text.

First John 5:7 and Greek Manuscripts

           Earlier this month over at the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog, Elijah Hixson offered an informative post which included pictures of the few Greek manuscripts which have the Comma Johanneum in the text of First John 5:7.  The earliest is GA 629, a Latin-Greek manuscript dated to 1362.  I offered some analysis of the text of First John 5:7 in GA 629 in August of 2016 (see the replica of the relevant part of 629 at this link, or a page-view of the manuscript itself at the Vatican Library’s website at this link).  The second-oldest manuscript of First John that has the Comma Johanneum in the text of 5:7 is GA 61, which was made in the early 1500s.  The third-oldest Greek manuscript with the Comma Johanneum in the text of First John 5:7 is GA 918.  Hixson, by a series of simple deductions, narrowed his estimate of its production-date to the 1570s. 

GA 641:  The Comma Johanneum is absent.

            And that’s it, unless we include GA 2473 (from 1634) and 2318 (from the 1700s) – both of which were made after printed editions of the Greek New Testament were made, and which very probably include the Comma Johanneum because their copyists used a printed Greek New Testament as an exemplar. 

            The other manuscripts do not have the Comma Johanneum in the text; the Comma Johanneum is written in the margin instead.  Hixson’s post includes pictures of the relevant portions of these manuscripts, so I will only spend a little time reviewing them here: 

            ● In GA 221, a manuscript from the 900s, the Comma Johanneum is written in the margin, but it appears that the Comma Johanneum arrived there rather recently, considering that (as Hixson reports) a description of GA 221 made in 1854 says that the manuscript does not have the Comma Johanneum, with nothing said about a margin-note. 

            ● In GA 177, the Comma Johanneum is written in the upper margin of the page and is identified by its verse-number, which means that the Comma Johanneum was placed in the margin of GA 177 sometime after 1550.  (Dan Wallace noticed the Comma Johanneum in the margin of GA 177 in 2010.)   Hixson offers a more precise date, however:  the annotator of this manuscript left his name in it:  Ignatius Hardt, who was born in 1749.  Guided by a little more data about Hardt’s career, Hixson estimates that Hardt wrote the Comma Johanneum in the margin of 177 no earlier than the 1770s.

            ● In GA 88, a manuscript from the 1100s, the Comma Johanneum appears in the margin with almost no clues about who added it or when.   Almost no clues:  as Hixson observed, whereas copyists routinely contracted sacred names such as “Father” and “Spirit,” in the margin-note in 88 these words are written out in full, which may indicate that the person writing them was using as his source a printed book, rather than a manuscript.

            ● In GA 429, a manuscript from the 1300s, the Comma Johanneum is written in the margin, and it matches up with the text of the Comma Johanneum printed in Erasmus’ third edition – because, as Hixson explains, Erasmus’ third edition was its source.

            ● In GA 636, a manuscript from the 1400s, the Comma Johanneum is written in the margin, and is missing the articles, which is consistent with a scenario in which it was translated from Latin. 

                       

            Let’s review the implications of this evidence:  First, there is no Greek manuscript made before the 1500s in which the Comma Johanneum appears in the text of First John in a form which does not appear to be derived from Latin; strictly speaking, the exact text of the Comma Johanneum that appears in the Textus Receptus does not appear in the text of any Greek manuscript made before the 1500s.  Second, in the Greek manuscripts in which the Comma Johanneum appears in the margin, it either appears to be derived from Latin, or else it appears to have been copied from a printed source. 

           

            Now let’s look on the other side of the equation.  Here, from researcher Timothy Berg, is a list of the Greek manuscripts that contain First John but do not have the Comma Johanneum in the text:

Manuscripts Produced Before the 700s:  01, 03, 02, 048, 0296

Manuscripts Produced in the 700s-800s:  018, 020, 025, 049, 0142, 1424, 1862, 1895, 2464

Manuscripts Assigned to the 900s:  044, 056, 82, 93, 175, 181, 221, 307, 326, 398, 450, 454, 456, 457, 602, 605, 619, 627, 832, 920, 1066, 1175, 1720, 1739, 1829, 1836, 1837, 1841, 1845, 1851, 1871, 1874, 1875, 1880, 1891, 2125, 2147,     

Manuscripts Assigned to the 1000s:  35, 36, 2, 42, 43, 81, 104, 131, 133, 142, 177, 250, 302, 325, 312, 314, 424, 436, 451, 458, 459,   462, 464, 465, 466, 491, 506, 517, 547, 606, 607, 617, 623, 624, 635, 638, 639, 641, 699, 796,   901, 910, 919, 945, 1162, 1243, 1244, 1270, 1311, 1384, 1521, 1668, 1724, 1730, 1735, 1738, 1828, 1835, 1838, 1846, 1847, 1849, 1854, 1870, 1888, 2138, 2191, 2344, 2475, 2587, 2723,   2746     

Manuscripts Assigned to the 1100s:  3, 38, 1, 57, 88, 94, 97, 103, 105, 110, 180, 203, 226, 256, 319, 321, 323, 330, 337, 365, 431, 440, 442, 452, 618, 620, 622, 625, 632, 637, 656, 720, 876, 917, 922, 927, 1058, 1115, 1127, 1241, 1245, 1315, 1319, 1359, 1360, 1448, 1490, 1505, 1573, 1611, 1646, 1673, 1718, 1737, 1740, 1743, 1752, 1754, 1850, 1853, 1863, 1867, 1868, 1872, 1885, 1889, 1893, 1894, 1897, 2127, 2143, 2186, 2194, 2289, 2298, 2401, 2412, 2541, 2625, 2712, 2718, 2736, 2805     

Manuscripts Assigned to the 1200s:  4, 5, 6, 51, 204, 206, 172, 141, 218, 234, 263, 327, 328, 378, 383, 384, 390, 460, 468, 469, 479, 483, 496, 592, 601, 614, 643, 665, 757, 912, 914, 915, 941, 999, 1069, 1070, 1072, 1094, 1103, 1107, 1149, 1161, 1242, 1251, 1292, 1297, 1352, 1398, 1400, 1404, 1456, 1501, 1509, 1523, 1563, 1594, 1595, 1597, 1609, 1642, 1719, 1722, 1727, 1728, 1731, 1736, 1758, 1780, 1827, 1839, 1842, 1843, 1852, 1855, 1857, 1858, 1860, 1864, 1865, 1873, 2180, 2374, 2400, 2404, 2423, 2483, 2502, 2558, 2627, 2696       

Manuscripts Assigned to the 1300s:  18, 62, 76, 189, 201, 209, 216, 223, 254, 308, 363, 367, 386, 393, 394, 404, 421, 425, 429, 453,  489, 498, 582, 603, 604, 608, 621, 628, 630, 633, 634, 680, 743, 794, 808, 824, 913, 921, 928, 935, 959, 986, 996, 1022, 1040, 1067, 1075, 1099, 1100, 1102, 1106, 1248, 1249, 1354, 1390, 1409, 1482, 1495, 1503, 1524, 1548, 1598, 1599, 1610, 1618, 1619, 1622, 1637, 1643, 1661, 1678, 1717, 1723, 1725, 1726, 1732, 1733, 1741, 1742, 1744, 1746, 1747, 1753, 1761, 1762, 1765, 1769, 1831, 1832, 1856, 1859, 1866, 1877, 1881, 1882, 1886, 1890, 1892, 1899, 1902, 2080, 2085, 2086,  2197, 2200, 2261, 2279, 2356, 2431, 2466, 2484, 2492, 2494, 2508, 2511, 2527, 2626, 2675, 2705, 2716, 2774, 2777

Manuscripts Assigned to the 1400s:  69, 102, 149, 205, 322, 368, 385, 400, 432, 444, 467, 615, 616, 631, 636, 664, 801, 1003, 1105, 1247, 1250, 1367, 1405, 1508, 1626, 1628, 1636, 1649, 1656, 1729, 1745, 1750, 1751, 1757, 1763, 1767, 1830, 1876, 1896, 2131, 2221, 2288, 2352, 2495, 2523, 2554, 2652, 2653, 2691, 2704

Manuscripts Assigned to the 1500s and Later:  90, 296, 522, 1702, 1704, 1749, 1768, 1840, 1844, 1861, 2130, 2218, 2255, 2378, 2501, 2516, 2544, 1101, 1721, 1748, 1869, 1903, 2243, 2674, 2776, 2473, 1104

            With this data in mind, let’s consider a few extracts from a defense of the Comma Johanneum recently offered by Taylor DeSoto of Agros Reformed Baptist Church in Arizona: 
            ► “There is manuscript evidence for it.”  True, but as Hixson’s analysis shows, the Greek manuscript evidence for the Comma Johanneum is sparse, late, and shows clear signs of being derived either from Latin or from a printed text.   

            ► “It has more manuscript evidence support than let’s just say, the Gospel of Mark without 16:9-20.”  That is not quite the case; there are three Greek manuscripts in which Mark 16 ends at 16:8 (À, B, and 304 – all with other anomalous features), so technically, the quantities are equal.  But it would be foolish to use simple quantities to frame this evidence, because B and À are the two earliest manuscripts of Mark 16 known to exist, while GA 629 is from the mid-1300s, 61 is from the early 1500s, and 918 is from the 1570s, and the rest, as Hixson’s data shows, are either dependent on Latin, or else extremely late.  

            As a defender of the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20, I do not grant to B and À the level of weight that was given to them by Westcott and Hort (and which continues, in some circles, to be assumed).  But it is not just the testimony of B and À which we ought to consider.  It is also the testimony of 02, 048, 0296, 018, 020, 025, 049, 0142, 1424, 1862, 1895, 2464, 044, 056, 82, 93, 175, 181, 221, 307, 326, 398, 450, 454, 456, 457, 602, 605, 619, 627, 832, 920, 1066, 1175, 1720, 1739, 1829, 1836, 1837, 1841, 1845, 1851, 1871, 1874, 1875, 1880, 1891, 2125, 2147, 35, 36, 2, 42, 43, 81, 104, 131, 133, 142, 177, 250, 302, 325, 312, 314, 424, 436, 451, 458, 459,   462, 464, 465, 466, 491, 506, 517, 547, 606, 607, 617, 623, 624, 635, 638, 639, 641, 699, 796,   901, 910, 919, 945, 1162, 1243, 1244, 1270, 1311, 1384, 1521, 1668, 1724, 1730, 1735, 1738, 1828, 1835, 1838, 1846, 1847, 1849, 1854, 1870, 1888, 2138, 2191, 2344, 2475, 2587, 2723, 2746, 3, 38, 1, 57, 88, 94, 97, 103, 105, 110, 180, 203, 226, 256, 319, 321, 323, 330, 337, 365, 431, 440, 442, 452, 618, 620, 622, 625, 632, 637, 656, 720, 876, 917, 922, 927, 1058, 1115, 1127, 1241, 1245, 1315, 1319, 1359, 1360, 1448, 1490, 1505, 1573, 1611, 1646, 1673, 1718, 1737, 1740, 1743, 1752, 1754, 1850, 1853, 1863, 1867, 1868, 1872, 1885, 1889, 1893, 1894, 1897, 2127, 2143, 2186, 2194, 2289, 2298, 2401, 2412, 2541, 2625, 2712, 2718, 2736, 2805, and so forth. 

            ► “Those who attack the authenticity of this reading appeal to the assumption that it was introduced from a Latin manuscript.”  Mr. DeSoto writes as if there is no basis for this “assumption.”  However, it is not an assumption; it is a deduction from evidence:  in the Old Latin text of First John 5:8 (as I have explained already in an earlier post), the nouns are typically transposed to the order water-blood-spirit, which is conducive to a figurative interpretation in which the water represents the Father, the blood represents the Son, and the Spirit represents, of course, the Holy Spirit.  And that interpretation is the Comma Johanneum – an interpretive gloss that was inserted into the Old Latin text (and from there into the later medieval Vulgate text).  Its origin is linked to the transposition:  in evidence uninfluenced by Latin, where the transposition is absent, the Comma Johanneum is absent as well.

            ► “Can 1 John 5:7 be said to have been definitively introduced from the Latin, as though it were never found in a Greek manuscript?”  Yes, it can.  All one needs to do is observe the evidence and think it through:  everything is completely consistent with precisely that scenario.  Just look at the Latin text that runs parallel to the Greek text in 629, and look at the absence of the articles, and look at the absence of the Comma Johanneum in 02, 048, 0296, 018, 020, 025, 049, 0142, 1424, 1862, 1895, 2464, 044, 056, 82, 93, 175, 181, 221, 307, 326, 398, 450, 454, 456, 457, 602, 605, 619, 627, 832, 920, 1066, 1175, 1720, 1739, 1829, 1836, 1837, 1841, 1845, 1851, 1871, 1874, 1875, 1880, 1891, 2125, 2147, 35, 36, 2, 42, 43, 81, 104, 131, 133, 142, 177, 250, 302, 325, 312, 314, 424, 436, 451, 458, 459, 462, 464, 465, 466, 491, 506, 517, 547, 606, 607, 617, 623, 624, 635, 638, 639, 641, 699, 796, 901, 910, 919, 945, 1162, 1243, 1244, 1270, 1311, 1384, 1521, 1668, 1724, 1730, 1735, 1738, 1828, 1835, 1838, 1846, 1847, 1849, 1854, 1870, 1888, 2138, 2191, 2344, 2475, 2587, 2723, 2746, 3, 38, 1, 57, 88, 94, 97, 103, 105, 110, 180, 203, 226, 256, 319, 321, 323, 330, 337, 365, 431, 440, 442, 452, 618, 620, 622, 625, 632, 637, 656, 720, 876, 917, 922, 927, 1058, 1115, 1127, 1241, 1245, 1315, 1319, 1359, 1360, 1448, 1490, 1505, 1573, 1611, 1646, 1673, 1718, 1737, 1740, 1743, 1752, 1754, 1850, 1853, 1863, 1867, 1868, 1872, 1885, 1889, 1893, 1894, 1897, 2127, 2143, 2186, 2194, 2289, 2298, 2401, 2412, 2541, 2625, 2712, 2718, 2736, 2805, and so forth.  Then ask, what more could I possibly ask for, if I were asking for evidence that the Comma Johanneum drifted into a few Greek manuscripts due to the actions of copyists who wanted to make their Greek copies conform more precisely to the meaning of their Latin copies? 

            Nevertheless Mr. DeSoto states, “I have yet to see a scholar actually produce a manuscript, or historical source from antiquity which demonstrates that this verse was added from the Latin.”   It seems to me that he is simply resisting the plain implications of the evidence. 

            In addition. Mr. DeSoto resorts to a grammatical argument (offered in a past generation by commentator Robert Dabney) as evidence for the genuineness of the Comma Johanneum – and then states, “The only people I have seen stand against this grammatical argument are people who self-admittedly are rusty in Greek.”  However, this whole approach is a nothingburger, as demonstrated already by Dr. Barry Hofstetter in the 2018 post, The Comma Johanneum and Greek Grammar. 

            Furthermore, Mr. DeSoto misrepresents the evidence when he states that “Jerome and Nazianzes comment on it.”  By “Jerome” he appears to mean the author of the Preface to the Canonical Epistles – an author who (as I have already pointed out) used the transposed form of First John 5:8.  And by saying that “Gregory of Nazianzes comments on it,” he seems to be referring to the statement by Gregory of Nazianzus where, after stating that John says “that there are three that bear witness, the Spirit and the water and the blood” – as we find verse 8 in most manuscripts, without the phrase “on earth” – he bring up a frivolous objection from a posited grammarian only in order to tear it down, stating “You see how completely your argument from con-numeration has completely broken down, and is refuted by all these instances,” and he goes on from there – not once citing any part of the Comma Johanneum.  

            It is simply false to claim that Gregory of Nazianzus commented on the Comma Johanneum.  He did not do so.   Furthermore, in the very next chapter of his composition, Gregory of Nazianzus refers to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, without referencing the Comma Johanneum.

            Mr. DeSoto did not leave that falsehood without company.  He also claimed, “The Comma Johanneum was seated at 1 John 5:7 until evangelical textual critics began deconstructing the Scriptures.”  As long as one ignores the testimony of 02, 048, 0296, 018, 020, 025, 049, 0142, 1424, 1862, 1895, 2464, 044, 056, 82, 93, 175, 181, 221, 307, 326, 398, 450, 454, 456, 457, 602, 605, 619, 627, 832, 920, 1066, 1175, 1720, 1739, 1829, 1836, 1837, 1841, 1845, 1851, 1871, 1874, 1875, 1880, 1891, 2125, 2147, 35, 36, 2, 42, 43, 81, 104, 131, 133, 142, 177, 250, 302, 325, 312, 314, 424, 436, 451, 458, 459, 462, 464, 465, 466, 491, 506, 517, 547, 606, 607, 617, 623, 624, 635, 638, 639, 641, 699, 796, 901, 910, 919, 945, 1162, 1243, 1244, 1270, 1311, 1384, 1521, 1668, 1724, 1730, 1735, 1738, 1828, 1835, 1838, 1846, 1847, 1849, 1854, 1870, 1888, 2138, 2191, 2344, 2475, 2587, 2723, 2746, 3, 38, 1, 57, 88, 94, 97, 103, 105, 110, 180, 203, 226, 256, 319, 321, 323, 330, 337, 365, 431, 440, 442, 452, 618, 620, 622, 625, 632, 637, 656, 720, 876, 917, 922, 927, 1058, 1115, 1127, 1241, 1245, 1315, 1319, 1359, 1360, 1448, 1490, 1505, 1573, 1611, 1646, 1673, 1718, 1737, 1740, 1743, 1752, 1754, 1850, 1853, 1863, 1867, 1868, 1872, 1885, 1889, 1893, 1894, 1897, 2127, 2143, 2186, 2194, 2289, 2298, 2401, 2412, 2541, 2625, 2712, 2718, 2736, 2805, and so forth, that is something that can be honestly said.  Yes, if you resolve to be blind to these Greek manuscripts, and focus instead, like a horse wearing blinders, upon interpolated and transposed Latin texts, and on a few late manuscripts influenced by them, then you can say that you have a basis for keeping the Comma Johanneum in your text of First John.  But if you are going to say that it was a good thing that at some point in the past, the Latin text was on the throne, and that the Greek text was usurped and pushed to the side, and that such ought to be the case today, then you thus are not actually recognizing the authority of the original text.      

            Finally, after asking a series of rhetorical questions, Mr. DeSoto asks, “Do we gain anything by removing this passage?”  To which I say, first, that this is a trick question, because when we look at 02, 048, 0296, 018, 020, 025, 049, 0142, 1424, 1862, 1895, 2464, 044, 056, 82, 93, 175, 181, 221, 307, 326, 398, 450, 454, 456, 457, 602, 605, 619, 627, 832, 920, 1066, 1175, 1720, 1739, 1829, 1836, 1837, 1841, 1845, 1851, 1871, 1874, 1875, 1880, 1891, 2125, 2147, 35, 36, 2, 42, 43, 81, 104, 131, 133, 142, 177, 250, 302, 325, 312, 314, 424, 436, 451, 458, 459, 462, 464, 465, 466, 491, 506, 517, 547, 606, 607, 617, 623, 624, 635, 638, 639, 641, 699, 796, 901, 910, 919, 945, 1162, 1243, 1244, 1270, 1311, 1384, 1521, 1668, 1724, 1730, 1735, 1738, 1828, 1835, 1838, 1846, 1847, 1849, 1854, 1870, 1888, 2138, 2191, 2344, 2475, 2587, 2723, 2746, 3, 38, 1, 57, 88, 94, 97, 103, 105, 110, 180, 203, 226, 256, 319, 321, 323, 330, 337, 365, 431, 440, 442, 452, 618, 620, 622, 625, 632, 637, 656, 720, 876, 917, 922, 927, 1058, 1115, 1127, 1241, 1245, 1315, 1319, 1359, 1360, 1448, 1490, 1505, 1573, 1611, 1646, 1673, 1718, 1737, 1740, 1743, 1752, 1754, 1850, 1853, 1863, 1867, 1868, 1872, 1885, 1889, 1893, 1894, 1897, 2127, 2143, 2186, 2194, 2289, 2298, 2401, 2412, 2541, 2625, 2712, 2718, 2736, 2805, and so forth, nobody is removing the passage; it is not there to begin with. 

            But taking the question as it stands:  yes we certainly do gain something.  First, we gain a purer, less corrupted text, which more closely resembles the original inspired text.  Mr. DeSoto recently stated in another post, “We need to receive the text as it has been passed down.”  I point out again that in the text of First John 5:7-8 that has been passed down in 99.2% of the handed-down Greek manuscripts, the Comma Johanneum is unsupported.  I point out again that the non-inclusion of the Comma Johanneum is supported.  I point out again that at this particular point, the Textus Receptus does not represent the text-that-was-handed-down, or the Byzantine Text, or the “Antiochan line.”  Yet this fact seems to have no effect on Mr. DeSoto’s position.  It seems abundantly clear that his goal is neither to defend the original text nor the text that has been handed down in Greek manuscripts; his agenda is to defend the contents of the Textus Receptus.

            (In addition, one must ask, “Which text that has been passed down?”, because the manuscripts that have survived to the present day do not always agree.  When asking, “Is this reading authoritative?” the decisive sub-question is not, Is it popular?, or “Is it familiar to a particular group of people?” (such as English readers of the KJV, or formulators of a particular creed from the 1600s), but, “Is it original?.)    

            Second, we lose the stigma of desperation which is the inevitable consequence of treating an interpolation as if deserves to be a foundation for Christian doctrine, as if the Textus Receptus must be right, and all those other manuscripts must be wrong.  It is morally wrong and strategically unwise to employ falsehoods – such as the false claim that John wrote the Comma Johanneum – in the service of the truth.  To continue to do so is to run the risk that onlookers will conclude that the orthodox view of the Trinity is so weak that its defenders must adopt non-original readings in order to defend it.  I would point out that few early theologians were as Trinitarian as Gregory of Nazianzus and Cyril of Alexandria – yet they did not use the Comma Johanneum, because it was not the Greek texts that they used. 

            Third, we gain the time that would otherwise be wasted continuing to discuss a textual variant which ought to be easily recognized as an interpolation.

Readers are invited to double-check the data in this post.

  

The Story of the Bible - A Review

            If you have ever wondered about the origins of the Bible, and about the history of its text, then you should read Larry Stone’s 2010 book The Story of the Bible.  In nine chapters, Stone reviews the Bible’s languages, the historical backgrounds of its books, and – of special importance to students of textual criticism – its transmission.  The Story of the Bible features pouch-pages containing 23 removable full-size, full-color facsimiles of pages from important manuscripts and printed Bibles, including the following:

            ● Papyrus 46:  the last page of Ephesians and the first page of Galatians

            ● Codex Vaticanus:  the last page of Second Thessalonians and the first page of Hebrews

            ● Codex Sinaiticus:  the last page of Luke

            ● The Lindisfarne Gospels:  the first page of text of Matthew

            ● The Winchester Bible:  the first page of Genesis

            ● William Tyndale’s 1526 English New Testament:  the last page of Luke and the first page of the Gospel of John, and  

            ● The 1611 King James Version:  frontispiece.

            In addition to the removable facsimiles, the text of The Story of the Bible is generously supplemented by photographs of sample-pages of a variety of manuscripts, including the Aleppo Codex and the Book of Kells.  While less sumptuous than some other books about manuscripts (such as Illuminated Manuscripts – Masterpieces of the J. Paul Getty Museum), the pictures in The Story of the Bible represent a wide range in terms of manuscript’s ages and locales.

            At the website www.storyofbible.com visitors can not only learn about Stone’s book but also learn more about the manuscripts, translations, and media that are featured in it, ranging from the Great Isaiah Scroll to The Devil’s Bible (Codex Gigas) to The Jesus Film.  There is also a special section that presents over 100 selected excerpts from the KJV.  A YouTube video tells more about the book, with some comments from the author.

            Not everything in Stone’s book can be relied upon.  He unfortunately repeats the false story that says that Erasmus made a rash promise to include the Comma Johanneum if a Greek manuscript could be found that had it in the text of First John.  In a section that focuses on the Greek New Testament and Textual Criticism (pages 66-67), Stone is guilty of spreading a misimpression about Mark 16:9-20, stating that this passage is missing not only in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus but also in “other very old manuscripts,” which is not the case.  He also perpetuates Neil Lightfoot’s grossly inaccurate method of counting textual variants:  “‘if one slight variant were to occur in 4,000 different manuscripts, this would amount to 4,000’ variations.” 

            Stone also does a disservice to scholars such as Bengel and Bentley (to say nothing of Reformation-era researchers such as Zegers) when he writes that “Not until the nineteenth century did scholars begin making judgments on which reading was “best.””  Also, in a section about Constantine von Tischendorf, Stone repeats the highly dubious story that Tischendorf spread (but which the monks of Saint Catherine’s Monastery deny) about how he found parchment leaves of Codex Sinaiticus “in a basket of manuscripts used for kindling to light fires.”  These errors – no doubt the result of dependence upon inaccurate sources – are comparable to a few counterfeit coins in the midst of a treasure-chest filled with valuable information.

            The Story of the Bible’s website should be updated about the Book of Kells:  although Stone says at the website that “As far as I know, Ireland’s finest national treasure [the Book of Kells] is not online in its entirety,” the situation has changed, and now each extant page of the Book of Kells can be viewed at the Trinity College Dublin website.          

            The Story of the Bible closes with a short but stirring chapter about Bible-distribution efforts by missionaries, Bible societies, and Bible translators.  May The Story of the Bible inspire its readers to not only vigilantly guard the text of the Bible and its message, but also to continue to take the gospel into all the world.

Readers are invited to explore the embedded links to additional resources.

The Comma Johanneum and Greek Grammar

A typical Greek manuscript of First John,
without the Comma Johanneum.

            Today we welcome a special guest, Dr. Barry Hofstetter, to share a post that pertains to an aspect of the textual question about First John 5:7.

●●●●●●●

My name is Barry Hofstetter.  I currently teach Latin at the Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy in Bryn Mawr, PA. I have a B.A. in ancient studies, Greek and Latin emphasis from the University of Maryland Baltimore County (1981); an M.A. in Classics from the Ohio State University (1986); a M.Div. from Westminster Theological Seminary, 1989, and the Th.M. in New Testament from Westminster, 1991. I did further graduate work at Westminster Theological Seminary, and have taught the languages (Greek and Latin) at various institutions since 1989.

Recently I took another look at First John 5:7-8 to consider the grammatical issues regarding that text, and particularly whether or not the text could stand as it does in the critical text, without the Johannine Comma. I have concluded that it certainly can, beyond a shadow of a doubt, and with more than one grammatical explanation.

First, let’s consider the claim of Eugenius Bulgaris regarding the agreement of nouns, adjectives and participles:
           “It is very well known, since all have experience with it, and it is clearly a peculiar genius of our language, that masculine and feminine nouns may be construed with nouns, adjectives and pronouns in the neuter, with regard to the actual sense (τὰ πράγματα, ta pragmata). On the other hand no one has ever claimed that neuter noun substantives are indicated by masculine or feminine adjectives or pronouns.”

This claim is so extraordinary that I once again checked the Latin to ensure that I had read it right. I’m particularly focusing on the second sentence, and there is no easy way to say it – it’s just simply wrong. In fact it’s a regular feature of the language that “neuter noun substantives” may be modified by adjectives or participles reflecting the “natural” gender of the word (i.e., the actual gender of the referent, that to which the noun actually refers). I will also note here that Eugenius does not specifically mention participles, but appears to group them under “adjectives,” since he is specifically in context talking about a participial construction. Here is Smyth:

1013. Construction according to the Sense (926 a). — The real, not the grammatical, gender often determines the agreement: ὦ φίλτατ᾽, ὦ περισσὰ τιμηθεὶς τέκνον O dearest, O greatly honoured child E. Tro. 735 (this use of the attributive adjective is poetical), ““τὰ μειράκια πρὸς ἀλλήλουςδιαλεγόμενοι” the youths conversing with one another” P. Lach. 180e, ““ταῦτ᾽ ἔλεγεν ἡ ἀναιδὴς αὕτη κεφαλή, ἐξεληλυθώς” this shameless fellow spoke thus when he came out” D. 21.117. (A Greek Grammar for Colleges, 1920).

Smyth is a standard reference, and I cite him in particular in order to show that masculine modifiers with neuter substantives are a regular feature of the language.

The first example that Smyth gives shows a neuter noun, τέκνον, teknon, modified by a masculine participle, τιμηθεὶς, timetheis. The second example has a neuter plural substantive, μειράκια, meirakia, modified by a masculine plural participle, διαλεγόμενοι, dialegomenoi, and further referred to by a masculine plural pronoun, ἀλλήλους, allelous. The third example has a feminine noun, κεφαλή, kephale, modified by the masculine participle ἐξεληλυθώς, exeleluthos. This is widespread enough that it is mentioned in the grammar with no need to list more examples, and notice Smyth’s use of the word “often.””

So the next question is whether or not there are any New Testament examples, and actually, they are fairly numerous. 

● Matthew 25:32 (all texts are taken from the TR, all translations from the KJV):  και συναχθησεται εμπροσθεν αυτου παντα τα εθνη και αφοριει αυτους απ αλληλων… – 
“And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another.”
            Here, ἔθνη (ethne, nations) is neuter plural, but the pronoun referring to them, αύτούς (autous, them) is masculine. The neuter substantive is referred to by a masculine pronoun.

● Luke 19:37 …ηρξαντο απαν το πληθος των μαθητων χαιροντες αινειν τον θεον φωνη μεγαλη περι πασων ων ειδον δυναμεων… – “the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen…”
            Here πλῆθος (plethos) is neuter singular and is referred to by χαίροντες (chairontes, rejoicing) a masculine plural participle, so once again a neuter substantive is referenced by a masculine (plural) participle.  (This is one example which helpfully illustrates the point – one among many that could be given.  I didn't mention τῶν μαθητῶν (of the disciples) for the same reason that I didn't mention τὸν θεόν (God):  it doesn't affect the grammatical point.)

“Of the disciples” is in the genitive case dependent on “the crowd.” It functions essentially as an adjective here, determining the consistency of the crowd, i.e., that it consists of disciples. For the word to modify disciples, it also would have to be in the genitive case, χαιρόντων. Now, Luke could have so had the participle modify the word disciples, and no one would have batted an eye. It would have been good Greek, and the sense would have been the same. But Luke, writing good idiomatic Greek, instead writes the word in the nominative case, and so shows that he is thinking of the word πλῆθος, crowd. He puts it in the masculine plural because the crowd does indeed consist of disciples, grammatically masculine, and it's also good Greek to indicate mixed groups in the masculine. That’s where the ad sensum comes in. He could just as easily have omitted the genitive, written his nominative masculine plural participle, and it would have been just as good, idiomatic Greek. Of course there are plenty of examples where just such a thing occurs. Here's another example also using the word “crowd” and a qualifying genitive:

            Acts 5:16 συνηρχετο δε και το πληθος των περιξ πολεων εις ιερουσαλημ φεροντες ασθενεις... – “There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks.”
            Here crowd is modified by the masculine plural participle φέροντες, bringing. The qualifying genitive phrase “out of the cities round about Jerusalem,” is actually feminine, since “cities,” πόλεων, is a grammatically feminine word.

Here’s a slightly different type of example to show that it’s not peculiar to having a crowd and a genitive plural:
            Rom 2:14 οταν γαρ εθνη τα μη νομον εχοντα φυσει τα του νομου ποιη ουτοι νομον μη εχοντες εαυτοις εισιν νομος – “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves.”
            In this case “Gentiles” is neuter plural, and the pronoun referring back to them, “these” is masculine plural. There is no qualifying genitive to offer any confusion.

Now let’s consider what Eugenius said:  “On the other hand no one has ever claimed that neuter noun substantives are indicated by masculine or feminine adjectives or pronouns.” His claim does not appear to be borne out by the facts of the language. More examples may be culled from the New Testament text, but these will suffice.

So now that we have determined that neuter substantives may be modified by masculine modifiers as the sense indicates to the author of the text, we have removed one of the major objections to the text of First John 5:7-8 as it stands in the critical text. If, as many have argued, the writer of First John was thinking of the witnesses as personified, it would be perfectly acceptable for him to use a masculine modifier to refer to the three witnesses, even though technically grammatically neuter.

            Eugenius is apparently the source of much of the grammatical speculation [spread by writers such as Robert Dabney and Thomas Holland – JSJ] about First John 5:7-8 that has circulated.  In what follows, I shall suggest that there is a fairly simple alternative. As before, Greek quotations from New Testament texts are taken from the Textus Receptus to forestall the objection that there is some sort of text-critical difficulty that, in the mind of the King-James-Onlyist, will invalidate the argument; likewise English quotations from the New Testament will be taken from the KJV.  After that, I will present a more detailed response to Eugenius’ argument.

            Have a look at First John 5:8:

και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν. – “And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”

Now, a bit of a grammar lesson, to help folks better understand the argument. “That bear witness” in English is actually a relative clause, but in Greek it’s a participle. A part of what? A participle. Participle comes from the Latin “to have a share in” and what participles do is share in the qualities of both an adjective and a verb – they are verbal adjectives. Another thing that adjectives get to do from time to time is to pretend to be nouns. We do this with proverbial statements in English, “The good die young” or “The poor shall always be with you.” The latter example shows that Greek does it too, since it’s a quotation from the New Testament. In Greek (and Latin) it’s done much more frequently, and not just with proverbial statements. 

Greek does this most often by planting a definite article in front of the adjective or participle. That’s the syntax of “there are three that bear witness.” It is a substantive participle, standing in where one might expect a noun instead. Had the author written οἱ μαρτύρες, “witnesses,” it would mean essentially the same thing, the difference being that the participle describes the referent in terms of the action inherent in the verb. Greek does this all the time, such as at John 3:16, “everyone who believes” is actually a substantive phrase parallel to “three who bear witness.”

Now, why is this important? It means that the substantive functions more like a noun than like an adjective. That means it does not modify another noun (or nouns) in the sentence, but gets its number and gender from its understood antecedent, and its case from how it is used in the sentence. There is therefore no need for it to agree with anything in the sentence. Here, the author is clearly thinking of “witnesses, those who give witness.” 

Notice also that “the spirit, and the water, and the blood” all have the definite article. This not only suggests that they are discrete elements, but that they are to be associated with the subject and with each other without being the same as each other. They are three different types of witnesses. Instead of the participle modifying them, they stand in apposition with the substantive participle. They are the particular examples of the witnesses. Since the substantive is acting as a noun, there is no need for “grammatical concord” between the substantive participle and the nouns which stand in apposition to it. It does not matter that “those who give witness” is masculine and that the three nouns are neuter.

Are there other examples of this? Actually there are many throughout Greek literature, but two stand out in the New Testament:

● Matthew 23:23:  τα βαρυτερα του νομου την κρισιν και τον ελεον και την πιστιν – “the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith.”…
            Here, we have an adjectival substantive which is in Greek neuter plural, “the weightier matters,” which is then particularized by three nouns in apposition, law, which is masculine, mercy, which is feminine, and faith, also feminine. 

● First John 2:16:  οτι παν το εν τω κοσμω η επιθυμια της σαρκος και η επιθυμια των οφθαλμων και η αλαζονεια του βιου – “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life”

“All that is in the world” is a neuter substantive phrase that is then particularized by three nouns in the feminine, lust (twice) and pride.

            Why didn’t Eugenius, whose Greek was supposed to be so good, come up with this? I believe that he was so strongly theologically motivated to keep the “received text” here that he either did not see any other grammatical options, or that he deliberately ignored them. This then set the tone for the 19^th-century apologists who similarly desired to protect the text. 
           

            In conclusion:  the fact ought to be accepted that masculine adjectives/pronouns/participles can and do modify neuter substantives, in plain contradiction to Eugenius' claim.

●●●●●●●

Postscript

            I have demonstrated that neuter substantives can indeed by modified by masculine modifiers, contrary to Eugenius’ claim. I have also suggested that “the three bearing witness” is treated as a substantive, and thus there is no need for it to modify the three neuter nouns, since they stand in apposition. Here I hope to show that Eugenius’ argument is really the claim that the three neuter nouns are personalized through their association with the Trinity, and thus the masculine participle is repeated. This is really the argument that many modern commentators use – the difference being that they see no need for added text. For Eugenius, the added text is what forces the spirit, the water and the blood to be taken as earthly representatives of the heavenly witnesses. 
            From my translation of the Latin excerpt from Eugenius:

           What reason can therefore be given for this failure to comply with the rule? It can only be the expression of the preceding 7th verse, which through the immediately following 8th verse is set forth symbolically and obviously restated, an allusion made to that which precedes. Therefore the three who give witness in heaven are first placed in the 7th verse, τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν. Then immediately the very same three witnesses are brought in, to confirm on earth the same witness, through these three symbols, in vs. 8: και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν. And so our Evangelist might say “They are the same as those giving witness in heaven.” This is sufficiently indicated through the particle καί, the force of which here is not simply connective but plainly identifying. [At this point, Eugenius shifts to Greek]

Concerning what was said in the text [perhaps = manuscript] above, clearly the Father, the Word and the Spirit. These are the ones giving witness also on the earth, and they are made manifest to us through symbols. These symbols are the spirit, through which the Father is revealed, the blood, through which the Son is revealed, and the water, through which the Holy Spirit is revealed. But these three, who above by way of revelation through the divine names themselves are presented as giving witness in heaven, are the same on earth through remembrance in the divine plan presented repeatedly by way of symbols.

Eugenius refers to the three earthly witnesses as “symbols,” a word which develops quite a technical sense in the centuries following the writing of the NT as “that which represents divine truth in another format” (so the word is used of creeds and confessions). Here, however, Eugenius seems to use it not in that technical sense but much the way we use the word in English, as that which represents something else. Tantalizingly, he does not tell us what he thinks these symbols actually are, although his Greek Orthodox provenance might indicate a Eucharistic interpretation. 

The important point here, however, is that Eugenius sees these earthly witnesses as essentially the same as the heavenly witnesses. The question here is whether the heavenly witnesses need to be there in the text. I would suggest not. John simply needs to be thinking of the witnesses as those who actively give witness, οἱ μαρτύρες, “the witnesses.”

Did John in fact intend a Trinitarian allusion? Given the way he expresses himself both in this epistle and in his gospel concerning the Father, Son and Holy Spirit I personally think it’s quite likely, although impossible to prove definitively. Eugenius in principle then simply uses a variety of the personification argument, that the assumed natural gender of “witnesses” would be masculine. Note, however, that the argument is one which is heavily theological, and not really grammatical.

Now, several 19th-century apologists for the added text have taken Eugenius’ argument to be primarily grammatical, and seen it under the category of grammatical attraction, that the second expression is overwhelmed, as it were, by the previous and so naturally becomes masculine rather than the expected neuter. Although there is grammatical attraction in Greek, it usually works with pronouns, and especially in relative clauses. It would be highly unusual to see such an attraction between two parallel clauses. In this analysis of attraction in grammatical concords, there is nothing at all related to any kind of grammatical attraction between parallel clauses, and rightly so, since there are no such examples in the language.  The argument that this is a special, one of kind case is simply special pleading. Languages just don’t work that way.

            In addition, consider the following comment from Meyer:

τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες] The masculine is used because the three that are mentioned are regarded as concrete witnesses (Lücke, etc.), but not because they are “types of men representing these three” (Bengel),[313] or symbols of the Trinity (as they are interpreted in the Scholion of Matthaei, p. 138, mentioned in the critical notes). It is uncertain whether John brings out this triplicity of witnesses with reference to the well-known legal rule, Deuteronomy 17:6; Deuteronomy 19:15, Matthew 18:16, etc., as several commentators suppose. It is not to be deduced from the present that ὕδωρ and αἷμα are things still at present existing, and hence the sacraments, for by means of the witness of the Spirit the whole redemptive life of Christ is permanently present, so that the baptism and death of Jesus – although belonging to the past – prove Him constantly to be the Messiah who makes atonement for the world (so also Braune). The participle οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, instead of the substantive οἱ μάρτυρες, emphasizes more strongly the activity of the witnessing.

The Comma Johanneum

First John 5:6b-9a in Codex A.

          In First John 5:7-8, there is a textual issue.  The King James Version reads, “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.  And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one.”    The New American Standard Bible, however, has a shorter text:  “For there are three that testify:  the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.”  The material that is in this passage in the KJV and its Greek base-text, but not in the NASB and its Greek base-text, is called the Comma Johanneum, which may be roughly translated as “John’s phrase” or “That phrase in John’s writings.”      

First John 5:7-8 in the 1611 KJV.

            The form of First John 5:7-8 in the KJV is based on a few late Greek manuscripts, plus hundreds (perhaps thousands) of copies of the Latin Vulgate, and some Latin patristic quotations.

            The form of First John 5:7-8 in the NASB is based on almost all Greek manuscripts of First John, including the early ones, plus hundreds of versional copies of First John in various languages, and many patristic quotations.   

            This difference in translations echoes a difference in the Greek base-texts used by the translators.  The King James Version is based on the Textus Receptus, or “Received Text,” a Greek compilation made in the 1500’s, beginning with Erasmus’ 1516 edition but continuing on throughout the 1500’s in various editions by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza, and issued with some adjustments in 1633.  The first edition of the Textus Receptus did not contain the Comma Johanneum, and Erasmus was criticized because of this.  In the course of his response to the accusation that he had acted irresponsibly by failing to include the Comma Johanneum (henceforth abbreviated as CJ), Erasmus wrote that he did not include the phrase because it was not in any of the Greek manuscripts that had been available to him when he had prepared his Greek compilation, and that if a single manuscript had contained the phrase, he would have included it.

The copyist of MS 1780 made a mistake when writing the
text of First John 5:7-8, accidentally repeating part of the
passage.  (Page 386 at the Rubenstein Library site.)

           

            Erasmus did not make a promise to include the CJ in the event that a manuscript was found that contained it.  The fictitious story that Erasmus made such a promise has been circulated far and wide; Bruce Metzger gave it wide popularity by presenting it in his handbook The Text of the New Testament as if it were true.  Even after Metzger retracted his claim – barely and timidly, in a footnote in the appendix! – it has proven to be a cockroach of a story, in the sense that it is hard to eradicate, even though Henk J. de Jonge efficiently refuted it in 1990.

            [The Legend of the Rash Promise is not the only fiction that commentators have spread about the CJ.  It is often claimed that the CJ was never cited at any church councils – which, though true as far as councils of Greek-speaking clerics are concerned, ignores the brief Council of Carthage (where Latin was prevalent) that took place in 484 (not to be confused with other councils that occurred there).  At this council, according to Victor Vitensis, Eugene of Carthage led a large delegation of African bishops and was prepared to confront the Vandal (and Arian) ruler Huneric with a citation of the CJ as “a shining light teaching the unity of the divinity of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit.”] 

            But there is something to the vague idea that Erasmus said something that induced him to include the CJ even on scant evidence.   After issuing the first two editions of his Greek compilation, Erasmus wanted to refine his work again.  Having stated previously that he would have included the CJ if he had found it in a single manuscript, he found himself in a predicament when someone brought to his attention the existence of a Greek manuscript from Britain in which First John 5:7-8 included the CJ. 

            Erasmus was capable of anticipating what his opponents would say if he continued to refrain from putting the CJ into the Greek text of his compilation (something like, “You claimed that you would have included it if it was in just one Greek manuscript, but now, after being shown one Greek manuscript that has the phrase, you still did not include it!  How inconsistent!”) and so, in 1522, Erasmus included the CJ in the third edition of his Greek compilation, and there it remained in the Textus Receptus throughout the 1500’s, and there it was in 1604 when the translation-work on the KJV began.

            Entire books have written about the subsequent history of the debate that has orbited the CJ in the 1600’s and onward; the names Isaac Newton, Richard Porson, Edward Gibbon, and Charles Forster should not escape the notice of anyone who wants to be thoroughly informed about all that.  My focus today is elsewhere:  I wish to share some reasons for maintaining that the CJ began as an allegorical comment about verse 8 in a branch of the Old Latin version, and that this can be demonstrated fairly concisely. 

            The earliest patristic evidence that is sometimes interpreted as evidence in favor of the CJ is a comment from Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, in the mid-200’s.  In his composition Treatise on the Unity of the Universal Church (1:6), Cyprian says: “Dicit Dominus, ‘Ego et Pater unum sumus,’ et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est:  ‘Et tres unum sunt,’” that is, in English, “The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one,” and again, it is written of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one.’”  That final phrase, “And these three are one” is taken by defenders of the CJ as a reference to the end of First John 5:7.  However, depending on the arbitrary preferences of Latin translators, both verse 7 and verse 8 could end with the words Et hi tres unum sunt, or Et tres unum sunt (in the Vulgate, for example, as edited by Eberhard Nestle in 1906, both verses end the same way, Et hi tres unum sunt).  This reference does not rule out the idea that Cyprian was quoting verse 8, and interpreting it as a symbolic reference to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

            But this naturally raises a question:  if Cyprian’s quotation is from 5:8 rather than 5:7, why did Cyprian say that it was something about the Father and Son and Holy Spirit?  If Cyprian’s text of First John did not have the CJ, how ever did he manage to read a text that meant, “For there are three that testify:  the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement” and perceive therein a reference to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? 

            I contend that the Latin text of First John 5:8 used by Cyprian (and by several other Latin writers) contained a transposition.  Rather than refer to the spirit (or Spirit), and the water, and the blood, a form of First John 5:8 in a branch of the Old Latin text referred to the water, the blood, and the spirit, and it was only after this change to the word-order that the text of verse 8 elicited an allegorical interpretation, which a Latin writer expressed in a note that eventually was inserted into the text as the CJ.  The Old Latin text also shows that some Latin copyists altered the three witnesses in verse 8, so as to refer to the flesh (“caro”) as one of them.  But the transposition is the thing to see.  Consider these Latin utilizations of the passage:

            ● Liber Apologeticus (380’s, probably written by Priscillian or one of his associates):  Tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in terra:  aqua caro et sanguis et haec tria in unum sunt.  Et tria sunt quae testimonium dicent in caelo:  Pater Verbum et Spiritus et haec tria unum sunt in Christo Iesu.” That is:  “There are three that bear witness in earth:  water, flesh, and blood, and these three agree in one.  And there are three that bear witness in heaven:  Father, Word, and Spirit.  And these three are one in Christ Jesus.”

            The order is different from what is seen in the Textus Receptus (in which the heavenly witnesses are mentioned before the earthly witnesses).  And the earthly witnesses themselves, and the order in which they are mentioned, are different in Priscillian’s quotation; instead of Spirit and water and blood, Priscillian mentions the water, flesh, and blood.  Priscillian also adds an extra phrase at the end, “in Christ Jesus.”

            ● Contra Varimadum Arianum (either from the late 300’s and written by Idacius Clarus, or from the late 400’s and written by Vigilius Thapsensis) cites First John 5:7-8 with the CJ and with the transposition in verse 8:  “John the Evangelist . . . says there are three who afford testimony on earth:  the water, the blood, and the flesh, and these three are in us; and there are three who afford testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one.”  Notice that once again, the earthly witnesses are listed before the heavenly ones, and “flesh” is one of the earthly witnesses, and that the order of earthly witnesses in this Latin text is different (water, blood, flesh) – varying from the order used by Priscillian, but agreeing partly; water is listed first.

            ● Formulae Spiritualis Intelligentiae (from c. 440, by Eucherius of Lyons), chapter 10, states that the number three represents the Trinity; the author cites First John 5:8 as if it is a clear example:  “In the epistle of John, three are those who bear witness:  water, blood, and spirit.”  The CJ itself is not cited; rather, verse 8 is regarded allegorically as a reference to the Trinity – with the order of the witnesses rearranged so that water is listed first.

            ● Complexiones in Epostolis Apostolorum (from the 500’s, by Cassiodorus), utilizes the CJ as part of the text of First John:  “Cui rei testificantur in terra tria mysteria:  aqua sanguis et spiritus, quae in passione Domini leguntur impleta:  in coelo autem Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus, et hi tres unus est Deus.”  In English:  “And the three mysteries testify on earth:  water, blood and spirit.  The fulfillment of which we read about in the passion of the Lord.  And in heaven:  Father and Son and Holy Spirit.  And these three are one God.”  Notice again the word-order in the Latin text:  water is first; blood is second; spirit is third.  (Also notice that the variation in the wording of the CJ:  “Son” appears rather than “Word.”) 

            ● The Preface to the Canonical Epistles (found in the Latin Codex Fuldensis, which was produced in 546) was, for a long time, thought have been written by Jerome, and this of course gave its contents added weight in the 1500’s, and perhaps to the translators of the KJV as well.  Here is what the author says about the CJ:  “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.”

            Notice that as far as the author is concerned, the CJ belongs in the text, and its absence is the effect of unfaithful translators.  Notice, too, the word-order in his citation of First John 5:8:  once again, water is listed first.  

            ● Adversus Elipandum (by Etherius of Osma in the 700’s), despite being written long after the Vulgate began to replace the Old Latin text, features a utilization of First John 7:8 with an Old Latin reading:  “the water and the blood and the flesh.”  Again, notice the word-order.

            The thing to see is that where the transposition goes, the CJ follows. 

            In the commentary of Scotti Anonymi – this moniker will have to do for the unknown author (possibly Augustinus Hibernicus) of a Latin commentary preserved in a single manuscript (Codex Aug. 233, kept at the Badische Landesbibliothek (Baden State Library) in Karlsruhe, Germany).  The manuscript itself was produced in the 800’s; the commentary was probably composed in the late 600’s.  In the relevant portion of Scotti Anonymi’s commentary, the CJ is not cited, but First John 5:8 is nevertheless interpreted by the commentator as if the three witnesses symbolize the three Persons of the Trinity, and the order of the witnesses in the citation is water, blood, and spirit. 

            Angland Shane has offered a summary of the gist of the part of the commentary that pertains to First John 5:8:  “The moral interpretation interpreted the three witnesses as baptism (water) martyrdom (blood) and the Spirit filled life (Spirit). Christ’s incarnation is presented as the prime example for this moral interpretation. The anagogical interpretation is Trinitarian. Water is said to speak of the Father (ingeniously Jeremiah 2:13 is cited as support). Blood speaks of Christ, especially His passion on the cross, and the Spirit is the Holy Spirit.”

            If the same sort of symbolic filter upon the text was applied to an Old Latin text of First John 5:8 in which the witnesses’ order was water-blood-spirit, it would explain a progression of events:

            (1)  An interpreter of the Old Latin text, upon reading the reference to water, blood, and spirit, is reminded of the Father, Son, and Spirit.  Recalling the testimony of the Father, Son, and Spirit in the Gospels, he composes a note mentioning this. 

            (2)  This note becomes the CJ, first in the margin of Old Latin manuscripts, and then in the Old Latin text itself in the 300’s – sometimes before verse 8 and sometimes after verse 8.  For a little while, it was exclusive to copies in which the order of the three witnesses in verse 8 was transposed.  

            (3)  By the 500’s, its doctrinal usefulness results in its adoption in Latin texts in which the witnesses in verse 8 were not transposed.

            Meanwhile in the Greek manuscripts, there is no external evidence of the existence of the CJ for over a thousand years, because in the entire Greek transmission-stream, the transposition of the witnesses in verse 8 never occurred.  In the late medieval era, some manuscripts were made in which each page contains two columns of text; the Greek text occupies one column, and the Latin text occupies the other one.  Sometimes the Greek text was altered so as to agree with the Latin text, and for this reason, the CJ appears in the text of First John 5:7 in a few late medieval Greek manuscripts (the earliest of which is (probably) minuscule 629, which is assigned to the 1300’s, though Daniel Wallace seems to think it is much younger).  But, unless one were to add to the equation Greek manuscripts that were copied with printed Greek copies of the Textus Receptus as their exemplars, the CJ seldom appears in exactly the same form twice in Greek. 

            For example, in Codex Montfortianus – the manuscript which was brought to Erasmus’ attention in the 1520’s as containing the CJ – it seems evident that the source of the CJ is Latin, not Greek.  The text of the CJ in minuscule 61 (as was noted by Orlando T. Dobbin in 1854) runs as follows [the sacred-name contractions that are underlined here are overlined in the manuscript]: 

            ὁτϊ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτϋροῦντ·¨ ἐν τῶ ουνω,

            πηρ, λογος, καί πνα αγῖον, καί οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς εν εισϊ. 

            καί τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτϋροῦντ·¨ ἐν τῃ γῃ, πνα, ὑδωρ, καί αιμα.

But this is different from the text found in the Greek column of minuscule 629, which says that the witnesses are απο του (“from the”) heaven rather than εν τω (“en the”) heaven. And although Erasmus’ third edition (1522) includes First John 5:7 in the same form found in minuscule 61, by 1556 the text was different: 

            ὁτϊ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτϋροῦντες ἐν τῶ ουρανω,

            ὁ πατὴρ, ὁ λογος, καί τὸ πνεῦμα ἅγῖον, καί οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς εν εισϊ. 

            καί τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτϋροῦντες ἐν τῃ γῃ,

            πνεῦμα καί ὑδωρ καί αιμα, καί οἱ τρεῖς ἐισ τὸ εν εἰσιν.  

It looks as if Erasmus, at some point, added two articles (ὁ, the), one conjunction (καί, and), and the final phrase.  In minuscule 629, the articles and the conjunction are absent, as in minuscule 61.  Thus, it seems difficult to maintain that the Greek base-text of First John 5:7 that is found in the KJV is extant in the text of any Greek manuscript not copied from a printed edition of the Textus Receptus.

The takeaway from all this is that the Comma Johanneum was not part of the original text of First John; it began as a Latin interpretative note on verse 8, after the word-order in verse 8 had been altered.  Furthermore, hardly any Greek manuscripts of First John contain the CJ, and the ones that have it in their text have variations indicating that the few late Greek manuscripts that support the CJ do so because of contamination from Latin copies, not because they echo earlier Greek copies.  The CJ does not belong in the New Testament. 

_______________

Scripture attributed to the New American Standard Bible® is Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation.  Used by permission.