The gradual appearance of the comma in the manuscript
evidence is represented in the following tables:
Latin manuscripts | ||||
Date | Name | Place | Other information | |
7th century | Codex Legionensis | Leon Cathedral | Spanish | |
7th century | Frisingensia Fragmenta |
| Spanish | |
9th century | Codex Cavensis |
| Spanish | |
9th century | Codex Ulmensis |
| Spanish | |
927 AD | Codex Complutensis I |
| Spanish | |
10th century | Codex Toletanus |
| Spanish | |
8th–9th century | Codex Theodulphianus | Paris (BnF) | Franco-Spanish | |
8th–9th century | Codex Sangallensis 907 | St. Gallen | Franco-Spanish | |
9th–10th century | Codex Sangallensis 63 | St. Gallen | marginal gloss | |
Greek manuscripts | ||||
Date | Manuscript No. | Name | Place | Other information |
c. 1520 | 61 | Codex Montfortianus | Dublin | Original.Reads "Holy Spirit" instead of |
14th–15th century | 629 | Codex Ottobonianus | Vatican | Original.Latin text along the Greek text,revised |
16th century | 918 |
| Escorial(Spain) | Original. |
18th century | 2318 |
| Bucharest | Original.Thought to be influencedby the Vulgata |
18th century | 2473 |
| Athens | Original. |
11th century | 88 | Codex Regis | Naples | Marginal gloss: 16th century |
11th century | 177 | BSB Cod. graec. 211 | Munich | Marginal gloss: late 16th century |
10th century | 221 |
| Oxford | Marginal gloss: 15th or 16th century |
14th century | 429 | Codex Wolfenbüttel | Wolfenbüttel(Germany) | Marginal gloss: 16th century |
16th century | 636 |
| Naples | Marginal gloss: 16th century |
The grammar in 1 John
5:7-8[edit]
In 1 John 5:7-8 in the Received Text, we see the words
"the-ones bearing-witness [plural masculine] in the heaven,
THE Father [singular masculine], THE Word and THE Holy Spirit
… the-ones bearing-witness [plural masculine] on the
earth, THE Spirit [singular neuter] and THE water and THE
blood."
Note: The words in bold print are the words of
the Johannine Comma.
In 1 John 5:7-8 in the Critical Text and Majority Text,
we see the words "the-ones bearing-witness [plural masculine],
THE Spirit [singular neuter] and THE water and THE
blood."
Johann Bengel,[132] Eugenius Bulgaris,[133] John Oxlee
[134] and Daniel Wallace,[135] who are highly credentialed in the
study of the Greek language, say that each plural masculine
article-participle phrase "the-ones bearing-witness" in 1 John
5:7-8 is a substantive and therefore must (and does) agree with
the natural number and gender (plural masculine) of the idea
being expressed (persons), and that the three subsequent
articular (preceded by an article) nouns in each instance are
appositional (added for clarification) nouns, and that the
article-participle phrase "the-ones bearing-witness" is either
plural masculine for persons because the three subsequent
appositional articular nouns "THE Father, THE Word and THE Holy
Spirit" are three persons or plural masculine for persons because
the three subsequent appositional articular nouns "THE Spirit and
THE water and THE blood" symbolize three persons, although
Bengel, Bulgaris, Oxlee and Wallace do not all agree on the
identity of the three persons that are symbolized by "THE Spirit
and THE water and THE blood."
Frederick Nolan [136] (and Robert Dabney [137] and
Edward Hills,[138] who repeat what Nolan says), who is not highly
credentialed in the study of the Greek language, claims that each
plural masculine article-participle phrase "the-ones
bearing-witness" in 1 John 5:7-8 is an adjective that modifies
the three subsequent articular nouns, and that it therefore must
(according to Nolan) agree with the grammatical gender of the
first subsequent articular noun in each instance. Nolan claims
that the masculine gender of each article-participle phrase
"the-ones bearing-witness" in 1 John 5:7-8 has to be based on the
masculine grammatical gender of the grammatically masculine
articular noun "the Father" in the Johannine Comma, and that
since there is no grammatically masculine noun in 1 John 5:7-8
when the Johannine Comma is not included in the text, therefore
the masculine gender of each article-participle phrase "the-ones
bearing-witness" in 1 John 5:7-8 is proof that John wrote the
Johannine Comma.
The problem with Nolan"s claim, other than the fact that
it is contrary to what Bengel, Bulgaris, Oxlee and Wallace say,
is that it is grammatically impossible, because the only way that
an article-adjective or article-participle phrase can agree with
the grammatical gender of a subsequent noun is to function as an
adjective that modifies the subsequent noun (or nouns), and in
order for that to occur, the subsequent noun (or nouns) must be
anarthrous (not preceded by an article), and the
article-adjective or article-participle phrase must agree in
case, number and gender (all three) with the subsequent
anarthrous noun (if there is one noun) or with the first
subsequent anarthrous noun (if there are multiple nouns), as in
the following examples.
(Received Text) John 6:57 … the living [nominative
singular masculine] Father [nominative singular masculine]
…
(Received Text) 1 Timothy 1:11 … the blessed
[genitive singular masculine] God [genitive singular masculine]
…
(Received Text) Titus 2:13 … the blessed
[accusative singular feminine] hope [accusative singular
feminine] and appearance [accusative singular feminine]
…
Compare:
(Received Text) Revelation 6:14 … every
[nominative singular neuter] mountain [nominative singular
neuter] and island [nominative singular feminine]
…
In 1 John 5:7-8, since the subsequent nouns are always
articular, and since the nominative plural masculine
article-participle phrase "the-ones bearing-witness" never agrees
in case, number and gender (all three) with the first subsequent
articular noun (either the nominative singular masculine
articular noun "the Father" or the nominative singular neuter
articular noun "the Spirit"), therefore the article-participle
phrase "the-ones bearing-witness" has to be a substantive in each
instance, and it has to agree with the natural number and gender
(plural masculine) of the idea being expressed (persons) in each
instance, as stated by Bengel, Bulgaris, Oxlee and
Wallace.
Here are all of the New Testament examples of an
article-adjective or article-participle or adjective-article
phrase functioning as a substantive, and therefore agreeing with
the natural number and gender of the idea being expressed, and
being followed by three appositional articular nouns.
(Received Text) Matthew 23:23 … the-things
weightier [plural neuter for things] of-the Law, THE judgment
[singular feminine] and THE mercy and THE faith
…
(Received Text) 1 John 2:16 … every the-thing
[singular neuter for things] in the world, THE lust [singular
feminine] of-the flesh and THE lust of-the eyes and THE pride
of-the life …
(Received Text) 1 John 5:7 … the-ones
bearing-witness [plural masculine for persons] in the heaven, THE
Father [singular masculine], THE Word and THE Holy Spirit …
8 … the-ones bearing-witness [plural masculine for persons
(symbolically)] on the earth, THE Spirit [singular neuter] and
THE water and THE blood …
(Critical Text and Majority Text) 1 John 5:7 …
the-ones bearing-witness [plural masculine for persons
(symbolically)], 8 THE Spirit [singular neuter] and THE water and
THE blood …
The same thing occurs in all of those grammatically
correct examples.
See also[edit]
Christianity portal |
Textual criticism
David Martin (French divine) – the French
Bible translator who also defended the authenticity of the
Comma Johanneum.Codex Ravianus
Other disputed New Testament
passages[edit]
The Longer Ending of Mark
Pericope Adulteræ
Matthew 16:2b–3
Christ's agony at Gethsemane
John 5:3b-4
Doxology to the Lord's Prayer
Luke 22:19b-20
Notes[edit]
Jump up ^ Early English versions that omitted
the Comma were produced by Daniel Mace The New Testament
in Greek and English, 1729; The Primitive New
Testament, 1745 of William Whiston; A Liberal
Translation of the New Testament, 1768 by Edward Harwood
and also, in multiple editions starting in 1790, A
Translation of the New Testament, with notes by Gilbert
Wakefield. The New Testament in an Improved Version,
1808 Thomas Belsham omits the verse, and the Paraphrastic
translation of the Apostolical Epistles by Philip
Nicholas Shuttleworth in 1829, followed by additional
versions in the 1800s, including those of Edgar Taylor,
Leicester Ambrose Sawyer, Robert Ainslee, George R. Noyes and
Samuel Sharpe. Early paraphrases and commentaries that
bypassed the heavenly witnesses were the short
paraphrase-commentary section given by Isaac Newton and A
Commentary on the three Catholick Epistoles of St. John
by William Whiston in 1719. Examples of new translations,
commentaries, AV updates and paraphrase editions that
maintained the Comma were those of Daniel Whitby in 1703
A Paraphrase and Commentary on the New Testament and
John Wesley in 1755 Explanatory Notes on the New
Testament and Thomas Haweis in 1795, A Translation
of the New Testament from the Original Greek.Jump up ^ The Cambridge Paragraph Bible
of the authorized English version, published in 1873,
and edited by noted textual scholar F.H.A. Scrivener, one of
the translators of the English Revised Version, set the Comma
in italics to reflect its disputed authenticity. Few later
Authorized Version editions retained this formatting. The
AV-1611 page and almost all AV editions use a normal
font.Jump up ^ For fuller details of this group
see King James Versions and derivativesJump up ^ Anthony Kohlmann answered as
follows: "There are several ways of accounting for that
omission and among others, it may be said, 1st, that this
omission happened by the neglect of some ignorant copyists,
who, after having written the first words of the 7th verse
'there are three, that give testimony,' by a mistake of the
eyes, skipped over the remaining part of the text, and passed
on to the immediately following text, where the same words
recur; for such mistakes often take place in transcribing,
especially when the two verses and the two periods begin and
end with the same words. Another reason of this omission is
given by the author of the prologue to the seven Catholic
epistles … (Vulgate Prologue section translation)… By
these words he not obscurely alludes to the Marcionites or
Arians, who designedly erased this verse from all the copies
they could get into their hands; for they well understood
that by that one testimony their cause was undone. With a
like perfidy, St. Ambrose, (lib. iii de spiritu sancto cap.
10.) reproaches the Arians, who had expunged these words from
the Scriptures: Because God is a Spirit, 'Which
passage, says the holy doctor addressing the Arians, you so
well know to be understood of the Holy Ghost, that you have
erased it from the copies of your scriptures, and would to
God! you had only expunged it from yours and not also from
those of the church." Anthony Kohlmann, Unitarianism
philosophically and theologically examined, 1821,
p.173Jump up ^ "The addition appears to rest on
allegorical exegesis of the three witnesses in the text; it
was probably written in the margin of a Latin MS and then
found its way into the text; later still the order of the two
sets of witnesses was inverted and the text was translated
back into Greek and was included in a few Greek MSS." Ian
Howard Marshall, The Epistles of John, p. 78
1978.Jump up ^ . Henry Armfield on Grotius: "it
was the opinion of Grotius that, so far from being apposite
to the argument of the Greek Fathers, the text was introduced
by the Arians, so that from the analogy of the adjoining
verse they might argue that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were
one only in consent and not in essence." The Three
Witnesses, the Disputed Text in St. John, 1883,
p.36Jump up ^ "Jerome, for the same end, inserted
the Trinity in express words into his version" p. 185 "And
the first upon record that inserted it, is Jerome… he
altered the public reading" An Historical Account of Two
Notable Corruptions of Scripture The Recorder, 1803, Vol
2, p. 192-194 full text p.184-253, written by Newton c. 1690.
Newton adds "till at length, when the ignorant ages came on,
it began by degrees to creep into the Latin copies out of
Jerome's version." p.197 which he places very late.
"Afterwards the Latines noted his variations in the margins
of their books; and thence it began at length to creep into
the text in transcribing, and that chiefly in the twelfth and
following centuries, when disputing was revived by the
schoolmen." p. 192 "it was inserted into the vulgar Latin out
of Jerome's version" p. 207. Nonetheless, Newton does go
earlier than Jerome at the same time for origins, saying of
the Tertullian reference in "Against Praxeas" VI. "So then
this interpretation seems to have been invented by the
Montanists for giving countenance to their Trinity. For
Tertullian was a Montanist when he wrote this ; and it
is most likely that so corrupt and forced an interpretation
had its rise among a sect of men accustomed to make bold with
the Scriptures. Cyprian being used to it in his master's
writings" Newton called the words of Tertullian and Cyprian
an "interpretation so corrupt and stained". Apparently he saw
a vector from their interpretation to a Jerome addition to
scripture.Jump up ^ Simon's conjecture: "The same thing
hapned to those who caused to print St. Athanasius's Works,
with a Table of the passages of Holy Scripture, which are
quoted therein (apparently a reference to the Synopsis of
Scripture). They have set down at large there, the
seventh verse of the first chapter of the first epistle of
St. John, as if that holy man had quoted that place after
that manner….(Simon references the Disputation against
Arius at Nicea) .. I make no question but that this
explication of St. Athanasius was the occasion that some
Greek scoliates placed in the margin of their copies the
formentioned note, which afterwards was put in the text. And
that is more probable than what Erasmus thought concerning
this matter, who was of opinion, that the Greek copies, which
make mention of the witness of the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost, were more correct than the Latin copies. A
critical history of the text of the New Testament, 1689,
p.10. The Newton dissertation was written shortly after the
Simon Critical History was published in
English.Jump up ^ "As to the introduction of the
spurious words into the text, Porson supposes that
Tertullian, in imitation of the phrase, I and my Father
are one, had said of the three Persons of the Trinity,
which Three are One; that Cyprian, adopting this
application of the words from Tertullian, said boldly, of the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, it is written, And these
Three are One; that in the course of two centuries, when
this interpretation had been expressly maintained by Augustin
and others, a marginal note of this sort, Sicut tres sunt
qui testimonium dant in Caelo, Pater,&c, crept into
the text of a few copies; that such a copy was used by the
author of the Confession which Victor, the historian of the
Council convened by Hunneric, has preserved ; and that
such another was used by the historian of the books de
Trinitate. The life of Richard Porson, M. A.: professor
of Greek in the University of Cambridge from 1792 to 1808 by
John Selby Watson Charles Forster responded that the mystical
interpretation of the earthly witnesses arose through
Augustine, and that Clement of Alexandria shows us the
interpretation of verse 8 at the time of Cyprian. New Plea,
Charles Forster, footnote p. 52-55Jump up ^ That this was written by Orme can
be seen by his reference in Memoir of the
Controversy, 1830, where he refers to "the present
writer…". Also the "learned Critic" and "learned reviewer",
who had "triumphantly met" the arguments.^ Jump up to: a b Scrivener, while
opposing verse authenticity, wrote in Plain Introduction in
1861 "it is surely safer and more candid to admit that
Cyprian read v. 7 in his copies, than to resort to the
explanation of Facundus, that the holy Bishop was merely
putting on v. 8 a spiritual meaning". And then Scrivener
placed mystical interpretation as the root of Comma formation
"although we must acknowledge that it was in this way v. 7
obtained a place, first in the margin, then in the text of
the Latin copies…mystical interpretation". In the 1883
edition Scrivener wrote "It is hard to believe that 1 John v.
7, 8 was not cited by Cyprian". Thus, Scrivener would be
taking the position of a mystical interpretation by
scribes unknown, working through the margin and later adding
to the text, all before Cyprian. "they were originally
brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where
they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 8"
p.654. Under this possible scenario the Comma "was known and
received in some places, as early as the second or third
century" (p. 652 1883-ed) which, in the Scrivener textual
economy, would be analogous to Acts 8:37. Acts 8:37 has
undisputed early citations by Irenaeus and Cyprian and yet is
considered by Scrivener and most modern theorists as
inauthentic. Despite allowing an early textual formation for
the Unity of the Church citation, Scrivener quoted
approvingly negative views of the Tertullian and Cyprian
Jubaianum references. Scrivener also quoted Tischendorf about
the weightiness of the Cyprian referencing gravissimus
est Cyprianus de eccles. unitate 5.^ Jump up to: a b Joseph Pohle in
the The Divine Trinity: A Dogmatic Treatise accuses
Cassiodorus of inserting the Comma into the Vulgate from
early manuscripts. "The defense can also claim the authority
of Cassiodorus, who, about the middle of the sixth century,
with many ancient manuscripts at his elbow, revised the
entire Vulgate of St. Jerome, especially the Apostolic
Epistles, and deliberately inserted I John V, 7, which St.
Jerome had left out." Divine Trinity, 1911 p.
38-39Jump up ^ Although Pohle calls the Council of
Carthage the "main argument" for authenticity, about Cyprian
he notes "It is, as Tischendorf has rightly observed, by far
the weightiest proof for the Comma Ioanneum. But it
does not prove decisively that St. Cyprian used a New
Testament text which contained the "Comma"; and if
it did, it would by no means follow that the verse was
written by St. John." William Laurence Sullivan argues contra
the position of Elie Philippe in La Science
Catholique, 1889, p. 238 that the Cyprian citation is
"perhaps even peremptory" (conclusive, decisive). Sullivan
asserts that if Cyprian's New Testament contained the Comma,
the "probable inference would simply be that the
interpolation is older than we thought." And that anyway,
"this passage of the great African doctor does not suffice to
prove that I John v-7 existed in his day." New York
Review, The Three Heavenly Witnesses p.182,
1907.Jump up ^ Earlier than the Künstle
paper, Abbott Ambrose Amelli "unearthed ancient documents by
means of which he believes he has succeeded in tracing the
interpolation to a Priscillianist and therefore heretical
source ; but before he is permitted to publish his
results he has to await the pleasure of the Roman
Inquisition." Austin West, Abbe Loisy and the Roman
Biblical Commission, Contemporary Review, p.504, 1902
Vol 81. Similarly Charles Briggs wrote that Abbe Martin and
Dom Amelli had "more or less guessed and propounded,—
that the 'Comma' was composed in Spain, in 390 a.d., by the
Heresiarch Priscillian, to propagate his Pan-Christian
Heresy; and that this gloss, slightly retouched, then found
its way, in part rapidly, into the Latin New Testament."
Charles Augustus Briggs and Friedrich von Hügel, The
Papal Commission and the Pentateuch, p. 60, 1906. An
example of the warm reception this theory of direct
interpolation by Priscillian initially received is Caspar
René Gregory, who wrote it "appears to have been put
into the New Testament by Priscillian" Biblical
World, The Greek Text in 1611, p.260, 1911. William
Laurence Sullivan opined that while "the Comma fits into the
Trinitarian heresy of Priscillian", he was "notoriously
clever at expressing subtle heresy in apparently Catholic
phraseology" and "is about to gain another title to an
unfortunate immortality as the inventor of the text of the
three heavenly Witnesses." New York Review, The
Three Heavenly Witnesses p.182, 1907. One problem with
Priscillian interpolation theories was that they make
Priscillian guilty of a transparent forgery. Biblical Latin
specialist John Chapman reacted sharply to the Priscillian
interpolation idea "I do not at all agree with him
(Künstle) that Priscillian actually interpolated the
passage himself. He could hardly in that case have been so
foolish as to quote it in his apology knowing that it would
be declared apocryphal. He must have found it in his
Bible…" Notes on the early history of the Vulgate
Gospels, p. 163 1908.^ Jump up to: a b Before the 1883
publication of Liber Apologetics Priscillian was only known
through the writings of his opponents. In 1905 Karl
Künstle published Das Comma Ioanneum:auf seine
herkunft untersucht a book that proposed that "the
insertion of the comma into the text of the Epistle is due to
Priscillian himself", as summarized by Alan England Brooke.
Brooke references four difficulties with the Künstle
theory cited in the 1909 paper by Ernest Babut., The
International critical commentary on the Holy Scriptures,
Alan England Brooke, 1912, p. 160. The Priscillian origin
theory does show up in net articles today.Jump up ^ Since all scholars agree that the
verse was in the Bible of Priscillian in the 4th century,
references to 'medieval' for origin are anachronistic. e.g.
In the Anchor Bible, Epistle of John(1982) p. 782,
Raymond Brown writes that "The Vandal movements in the fifth
century brought North Africa and Spain into close
relationship, and the evidence listed above shows clearly
that the Comma was known in those two regions between 380 and
550". This date contradicts the idea of a medieval gloss
origin.Jump up ^ In another paper, Daniel Wallace
gives this explanation: "The passage made its way into our
Bibles through political pressure, appearing for the first
time in 1522, even though scholars then knew as they do now
that it was not authentic. The early church did not know of
this text…" Misquoting Jesus: The Story behind Who Changed
the Bible and Why Christian Research Journal, 2006,
vol 29, #3.Jump up ^ Voltaire, A Philosophical
Dictionary: from the French, Volume 6'', 1824 edition,
p. 290. Voltaire mixed up the two verses, as noted by John
Hey, in his Lectures in Divinity, Vol 2, 1st ed in 1797,
Appendix, "Concerning the Genuineness of 1 John v 7" p
281.Jump up ^ "throughout the vast series of one
thousand and four hundred years, which intervened between the
days of Praxeas, and the age of Erasmus, not a single author
whether Patripassian, Cerinthian, Ebionite, Arian,
Macedonian, or Sabellian, whether of the Greek or Latin,
whether of the Eastern, or Western church— whether in
Asia, Africa or Europe, hath ever taxed the various
quotations of this verse, which have been set forth in the
preceding pages, with interpolation or forgery. Such silence
speaks, most emphatically speaks, in favor of the verse, now
in dispute. George Travis, Letters to Edward Gibbon,
1785, p.319-320 The value of this opposing "evidence from
silence" became a part of the verse debate, Richard Porson
responding in his letters Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis,
1790, p 372Jump up ^ Thomas Belsham: "every man of
learning and inquiry knows, that the famous text 1 John v. 7.
"There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the
Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one," is an
impious forgery: and to them it appears to be little less
than blasphemy, to retain this forgery in a book which is
represented to be inspired … Unitarians, therefore, are …
discarding what they discover and conscientiously believe to
be spurious and fictitious, that they conceive that they are
by this conduct expressing the greatest possible veneration
for them, and the unspeakable value which they set upon the
pure, unadulterated Word of God." An address to the
inquirers after Christian truth, 1813, p.4-5. Edward
Nares replied to the Belsham claim "it is very rudely called
'an impious forgery,' which it has certainly never been
proved to be." Remarks on the Version of the NT edited by the
Unitarians, 1814, p. 248. Earlier, in 1804, the editor of the
works of Ebionite Joseph Priestley, John Towill Rutt, called
the verse a "pious fraud", Works, Vol 14, 1804, p.34 although
the wording of Priestley himself had been measured and not of
that accusatory nature. The 1808 'Improved Version' had the
equivocal "Virgilius Tapsensis .. by him it is suspected to
have been forged.", an accusation discarded when the
Priscillian citation was discovered.Jump up ^ In the latter 1800s, notable was
Robert Blackley Drummond, biographer of Erasmus. Drummond
referred to a "notable forgery" in Erasmus, his Life and
Character, p. 318, 1873. And his The text concerning
the Three Heavenly Witnesses: An interpolation was
published by the British and Foreign Unitarian Association in
1862. Drummond also wrote in the Theological Review,
including comments on the New Plea by Charles
Forster. The editor of the Theological Review was Charles
Beard, son of John Relly Beard. John in the 1870 Theological
Review listed ten Unitarian New Testaments, all without the
verse, and used the phrase "manifest forgery".Jump up ^ Guyse, with acknowledgement to John
Mill and the Matthew Henry Commentary of John Reynolds, also
expresses some of the internal and stylistic arguments from
the perspective of authenticity defense: "If we drop this
verse, and join the 8th to the 6th, it looks too like a
tautology, and the beauty and propriety of the connection is
lost, as may appear to any that attentively read the 6th and
8th verses together., leaving out the 7th; and they do not
give us near so noble an introduction of the witnesses, as
our present reading doth; no make the visible opposition to
some witnesses elsewhere, as is manifestly suggested in the
words, And there are three that bear witness in
earth, ver 8. But all stands in a natural and elegant
order, if we take in the 7th verse, which is very agreeable,
and almost peculiar to the style and sentiments of our
apostle, who, of all others, delights in these titles,
the Father and the Word, and who is the
only sacred writer that records our Lord's words, in which he
speaks of the Spirit's testifying of him, and
glorifying him by receiving of his things and
shewing them to his disciples and says, I and my
father are one. (John x. 30. xv. 26 and
xvi.14)."Jump up ^ Exceptions to this common
understanding include Johannes Bugenhagen (1485-1558), Pastor
and student of Martin Luther, who called the verse an "Arian
blasphemy", see Franz Posset. Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) in his
NT Annotations considered the verse an Arian addition
Neque vero Arianis ablatas voces quasdam, sed potius
additas. And John Jones (Ben David) was a
non-Trinitarian who defended the verse in the Monthly
Review (1826). Others have considered the historical
inclusion/omission debate to be far more nuanced as well.
Edward Freer Hills (1912-1981) in the King James Version
Defended Ch. 8, 1956 hypothesized that the verse may
have been allowed to drop from the Greek line by Trinitarians
who saw the verse as favorable to Sabellianism. See also
Frederick Nolan (1784-1864) in Ch 6 of An Inquiry into
the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate 1815. Nolan offers an
explanation with similarities to the later Hills conjecture,
including: "the orthodox were so far from having any
inducement to appeal to this text, that they had every reason
to avoid an allusion to it, as it apparently favored the
tenets of their opponents … Sabellianism … absolutely
derives support from the text of the heavenly
witnesses".Inquiry, p.536-538 And "the preference shewn by
the orthodox to the text of the earthly witnesses, over that
of the heavenly, needs no palliation from the circumstance of
the one text being unquestioned, and the other of doubtful
authority, in the age when those points were debated." ibid
p.551 Nolan thus claimed that "the negative argument adduced
against 1 John v. 7. derives its entire strength from an
inattention to the true state of that controversy, and the
period for which it prevailed." ibid p.543 Thomas Turton,
opposing verse authenticity, used this Nolan argument against
the position of supporter Thomas Burgess, A Vindication
of the Literary Character 1827, p. 257. And Henry Thomas
Armstrong (1836-1898) in Chapter 4 of The three
witnesses, the disputed text in st. John p. 29-37 (1883)
offers an analysis of why orthodox Trinitarians could see the
verse as unhelpful in doctrinal discussions, concluding that
"to have arrayed the verse in the lines of their defence
would have been simply a blunder in advocacy" (p. 37). The
early usage by the non-Trinitarian Priscillian is also
discordant to the common understanding, and led to the Karl
Künstle theory that the verse was an non-Trinitarian
Unionite interpolation.Jump up ^ An example from Porter, referencing
the 1707 analysis of John Mill: "Mill is equally explicit
with regard to many of the Fathers of the ancient Latin
Church; for example, he admits that the following knew
nothing of the three Heavenly Witnesses; the Author of the
Treatise on the Baptism of Heretics, usually printed
with the works of Cyprian; Novatian, in his book
upon the Trinity; Hilary, who in his Twelve Books
upon the Trinity, and other treatises against the Arians,
accumulates together a great many quotations out of the
sacred books, often less suitable to his purpose, but keeps a
deep silence upon this text; Lucifer of Cagliari, in
his book against Intercourse with Heretics;
Phoeobadius in his book against the Arians;
Ambrose, in his manifold writings against Arianism,
in which he quotes the 6th and 8th verses at full length, but
omits the 7th altogether; Jerome, who in his
acknowledged works, never makes any mention of this clause.
It is indeed insinuated that this passage was to be found in
all the Greek MSS. though absent from all the Latin ones, in
a Prologue to the Catholic Epistles, which pretends to have
been written by Jerome; but Mill, Bengel, and others confess
this prologue to be a forgery. Faustinus takes no
notice of the text in his work upon the Trinity against the
Arians; Augustine, in his book against Maximin the
Arian, turns every stone to find arguments from the
Scriptures to prove that the Spirit is God, …
Eucherius of Lyons, in his Questions on the New
Testament, repeats the same mystical explanation;
Facundus of Hermiana, gives a similar gloss, and
says the passage was so understood by Cyprian; Leo the
Great, Junilius, Cerealis, and Bede, pass the
7th verse unmentioned.Jump up ^ . Charles Forster in A new plea
for the authenticity of the text of the three heavenly
witnesses p 54-55 (1867) notes that the quote of verse 6
is partial, bypassing phrases in verse 6 as well as verse 7.
And that Clement's "words et iterum clearly mark the
interpolation of other topics and intervening text, between
the two quotations." Et iterum is "and again" in the
English translation.Jump up ^ Travis references Jerome as writing
approvingly of the confession. George Travis, Letters to
Edward Gibbon, 1785 p. 108. The Latin is "Nobis unus Pater,
et unus Filius ejus, verus Deus, et unus Spiritus Sanctus,
verus Deus; et hi tres unum sunt; una divimtas, et potentia,
et regnum. Sunt autem tres Personae, non duae, non una" Marc
Celed. Exposit. Fid. ad Cyril apud Hieronymi Opera, tom. ix.
p. 73g. Frederick Nolan, An inquiry into the integrity of
the Greek Vulgate, 1815, p. 291.Jump up ^ In dismissing Phoebadius in this
fashion, Griesbach was following Porson, whose explanation
began, "Phoebadius plainly imitates Tertullian…and
therefore, is not a distinct evidence", Letters to
Archdeacon Travis, 1790, p. 247.Jump up ^ "The silence of Augustine, contrary
to prevailing opinion, cannot be cited as evidence against
the genuineness of the Comma. He may indeed have known it"
Annotated bibliography of the textual criticism of the
New Testament p. 113 Bruce Manning Metzger, 1955.
Metzger was citing S. Augustinus gegen das Comma
Johanneum? by Norbert Fickermann, 1934, who considers
evidence from a 12th-century Regensburg manuscript that
Augustine specifically avoided referencing the verse
directly. The manuscript note contrasts the inclusion
position of Jerome in the Vulgate Prologue with the
preference for removal by Augustine. This confirms that there
was awareness of the Greek and Latin ms. distinction and that
some scribes preferred omission. Raymond Brown writes:
"Fickermann points to a hitherto unpublished eleventh-century
text which says that Jerome considered the Comma to be a
genuine part of 1 John–clearly a memory of the Pseudo-Jerome
Prologue mentioned above. But the text goes on to make this
claim: 'St. Augustine, on the basis of apostolic thought and
on the authority of the Greek text, ordered it to be left
out.'" Epistles of John, 1982, p. 785.Jump up ^ Augustine scholar Edmund Hill says
about a reference in The Trinity – Book IX that "this
allusion of Augustine's suggests that it had already found
its way into his text".Jump up ^ George Travis summarized of
Augustinian passages: The striking reiteration, in these
passages, of the same expressions, Unum sunt—Hi
tres unum sunt—Unum sunt, and Hi tres qui unum
sunt seems to bespeak their derivation from the
verse…Letters to Edward Gibbon, 1794, p. 46Jump up ^ While mentioning the usage of Son
instead of Word as a possible argument against Cyprian
awareness of the Comma, Raymond Brown points out that
Son "is an occasional variant in the text of the
Comma" and gives the example of Fulgentius referencing "Son"
in Contra Fabrianum and "Word" in Reponsio
Contra Arianos, Epistles of John p. 784,
1982.Jump up ^ This can be seen in The Greek
New Testament(1966) UBS p. 824 by Kurt Aland. In 1983
the UBS Preface p.x announced plans for a "thorough revision
of the textual apparatus, with special emphasis upon evidence
from the ancient versions, the Diatessaron, and the Church
Fathers." The latest edition of UBS4 updated many early
church writer references and now has Cyprian for
Comma inclusion. This citation is in parenthesis, which is
given the meaning that while a citation of a Father supports
a reading, still it "deviates from it in minor details" UBS4,
p. 36.Jump up ^ Bruce Metzger, who is used as the
main source by many writers in recent decades, ignores the
references entirely: "the passage … is not found (a) in the
Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine)",
A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, p.
717, 1971, and later editions. James White references Metzger
and writes about the possibility that "Cyprian .. could just
as well be interpreting the three witnesses of 1 John 5:6 as
a Trinitarian reference" A Bit More on the Comma
3/16/2006(White means 5:8). White is conceptually similar to
the earlier Raymond Brown section: "There is a good chance
that Cyprian's second citation, like the first (Ad Jubianum),
is Johannine and comes from the OL text of I John 5:8, which
says, "And these three are one," in reference to the Spirit,
the water, and the blood. His application of it to the divine
trinitarian figures need not represent a knowledge of the
Comma, but rather a continuance of the reflections of
Tertullian combined with a general patristic tendency to
invoke any scriptural group of three as symbolic of or
applicable to the Trinity. In other words, Cyprian may
exemplify the thought process that gave rise to the Comma."
In a footnote Brown acknowledges "It has been argued
seriously by Thiele and others that Cyprian knew the Comma".
Epistles of John p. 784, 1982.Jump up ^ Two Francis Pieper extracts: "In
our opinion the decision as to the authenticity or the
spuriousness of these words depends on the understanding of
certain words of Cyprian (p. 340)… Cyprian is quoting John
10:30. And he immediately adds: "Et iterum de Patre et
Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est: "Et tres unum
sunt"" ("and again it is written of the Father and the
Son and the Holy Ghost: 'And the Three are One"") Now, those
who assert that Cyprian is here not quoting the words 1 John
5:7, are obliged to show that the words of Cyprian: "Et
tres unum sunt" applied to the three Persons of the
Trinity, are found elsewhere in the Scriptures than 1 John 5.
Griesbach counters that Cyprian is here not quoting from
Scripture, but giving his own allegorical interpretation of
the three witnesses on earth. "The Spirit, the water, and the
blood; and these three agree in one." That will hardly do.
Cyprian states distinctly that he is quoting Bible passages,
not only in the words: "I and the Father are one," but also
in the words: "And again it is written of the Father and the
Son and the Holy Ghost." These are, in our opinion, the
objective facts." p.341 (1950 English edition). Similarly,
Elie Philippe wrote "Le témoignage de saint Cyprien est
précieux, peut-être même péremptoire dans
la question." (The testimony of St. Cyprian is precious,
perhaps even peremptory to the question.) La Science
Catholique, 1889, p. 238.Jump up ^ .Henry Donald Maurice Spence, in
Plumptre's Bible Educator wrote ".. there is little
doubt that Cyprian, before the middle of the third century,
knew of the passage and quoted it as the genuine words of St.
John." James Bennett, in The Theology of the Early
Christian Church: Exhibited in Quotations from the Writers of
the First Three Centuries, with Reflections 41, p.136,
1841, wrote "the disputed text in John's First Epistle, v. 7,
is quoted … Jerome seems to have been falsely charged with
introducing the disputed words, without authority, into the
Vulgate; for Cyprian had read them in a Latin version, long
before." Bennett also sees the "probability is strengthened"
that the Tertullian reference is from his Bible. And Bennett
rejects the Griesbach "allegorised the eighth verse" attempt
"for they (Tertullian and Cyprian) here argue, as from
express testimonies of Scripture, without any hint of that
allegorical interpretation which, it must be confessed, the
later writers abundantly employ". And the most emphatic
position is taken by the modern Cyprian scholar, Ezio
Gallicet of the University of Turin, in this book on
Cyprian's Unity of the Church, La Chiesa: Sui
cristiani caduti nella persecuzione ; L'unità della
Chiesa cattolica p. 206, 1997. Gallicet, after
referencing the usual claims of an interpolation from Caspar
René Gregory and Rudolf Bultmann, wrote: "Dal modo in
cui Cipriano cita, non sembra che si possano avanzare dubbi:
egli conosceva il « comma giovanneo ».
(Colloquially .. "there is no doubt about it, the Comma
Johanneum was in Cyprian's Bible".)Jump up ^ Arthur Cleveland Coxe, annotating
Cyprian in the early church writings edition, wrote of the
positions denying Cyprian referring the Bible verse in Unity
of the Church, as the "usual explainings away"
Ante-Nicene Fathers p.418, 1886. And Nathaniel Ellis
Cornwall referred to the logic behind attempts to deny
Cyprian's usage of the verse (Cornwall looks closely at
Porson, Lange and Tischendorf) as "astonishing feats of
sophistical fencing". The Genuineness of I John v. 7
p. 638, 1874.Jump up ^ Stanley Lawrence Greenslade,
Early Latin Theology: Selections from Tertullian,
Cyprian, Ambrose, and Jerome 1956, p. 164. The Latin is
"si peccatorum remissam consecutus est, et sanctificatus est,
et templum Dei factus est: quaero, cujus Dei? Si creatoris,
non potuit, qui in eum non credidit: si Christi, non hujus
potest sieri templum, qui negat Deum Christum : si
Spiritus Sancti, cum tres unum sunt, quomodo Spiritus Sanctus
placatus esse ei potest, qui aut Patris aut Filii inimicus
est?"Jump up ^ The use of parentheses is described
as "these witnesses attest the readings in question, but that
they also exhibit certain negligible variations which do not
need to be described in detail." Kurt Aland, The Text of the
New Testament, 1995, p. 243.Jump up ^ Origen, discussing water baptism in
his commentary on the Gospel of John, references only verse 8
the earthly witnesses: "And it agrees with this that the
disciple John speaks in his epistle of the spirit, and the
water, and the blood, as being one."Jump up ^ In modern times, scholars on early
church writings outside the textual battles are more likely
to see the work as from Athanasius, or an actual account of
an Athanasius-Arius debate. Examples are John Williams
Proudfit Remarks on the history, structure, and theories
of the Apostles' Creed 1852, p.58 and George Smeaton,
The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, 1882, p.
272Jump up ^ Liber Apologetics given in
Maynard p. 39 "The quote as given by A. E. (Alan England)
Brooke from (Georg) Schepps, Vienna Corpus, xviii. The Latin
is 'Sicut Ioannes ait: Tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in
terra: aqua caro et sanguis; et haec tria in unum sunt et
tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in caelo: pater, verbum et
spiritus; et haec tria unum sunt in Christo
Iesu.'"Jump up ^ Westcott comments "The gloss which
had thus become an established interpretation of St John's
words is first quoted as part of the Epistle in a tract of
Priscillian (c 385)" The Epistles of St. John p.
203, 1892. Alan England Brooke "The earliest certain instance
of the gloss being quoted as part of the actual text of the
Epistle is in the Liber Apologeticus (? a.d. 380) of
Priscillian" The Epistles of St. John, p.158, 1912.
And Bruce Metzger "The earliest instance of the passage being
quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a
fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus".
Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament,
p.717, 1971. Similar to these are William Sullivan, John
Pohle, John Seldon Whale, F. F. Bruce, Ian Howard Marshall
and others.Jump up ^ "It seems plain that the passage of
St, Cyprian was lying open before the Priscillianist author
of the Creed (Priscillian himself?) because he was accustomed
to appeal to it in the same way. In Priscillian's day St.
Cyprian had a unique position as the one great Western
Doctor." John Chapman, Notes on the Early History of the
Vulgate Gospels, 1908, p.264Jump up ^ Frederick Nolan summarizes the
history and gives his view of the significance: "Between
three and four hundred prelates attended the Council, which
met at Carthage; and Eugenius, as bishop of that see, drew up
the Confession of the orthodox, in which the contested verse
is expressly quoted. That a whole church should thus concur
in quoting a verse which was not contained in the received
text, is wholly inconceivable: and admitting that 1 Joh v. 7
was then generally received, its universal prevalence in that
text is only to be accounted for by supposing it to have
existed in it from the beginning." Inquiry, 1815, p. 296.
Bruce Metzger, in the commentary that accompanies the UBS
GNT, bypassed the context of the Council and the Confession
of Faith, "In the fifth century the gloss was quoted by Latin
Fathers in North Africa and Italy as part of the text of the
Epistle" A Textual Commentary on the Greek New
Testament, 1971, p.717 and 2nd ed. 1993, and 2002
p.648.Jump up ^ John Scott Porter, Principles
of Textual Criticism, 1848, p.509 Latin: Et Joannes
evangelista ait; In principio erat verbum, et verbum erat
apud Deurn et Deus erat verbum. Item ad Parthos ; Tres
sunt, inquit, qui testimonium perhibent in terra, aqua
sanguis el caro, et tres in nobis sunt. Et
tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in caelo. Pater, Verbum,
et spiritus, et hi tres unum sunt. McCarthy, Daniel The
Epistles and Gospels of the Sundays, 1866, p. 518. The
full book is at Patrologiae cursus completus: Series
latina Vol 62:359, 1800. Nathaniel Ellis Cornwall explains
how Idacius Clarus, of the 4th century and an opponent of
Priscillian, is internally accredited as the original author
Genuineness Proved by Neglected Witnesses 1877, p.
515. The work was originally published in 1528 by Sichard as
Idacius Clarus Hispanus, Otto Bardenhewer,
Patrology, the Lives and Works of the Fathers, p.
429, 1908.Jump up ^ Fulgentius continues "Let Sabellius
hear we are, let him hear three', and let him believe that
there are three Persons. Let him not blaspheme in his
sacrilegious heart by saying that the Father is the same in
Himself as the Son is the same in Himself and as the Holy
Spirit is the same in Himself, as if in some way He could
beget Himself, or in some way proceed from Himself. Even in
created natures it is never able to be found that something
is able to beget itself. Let also Arius hear one; and let him
not say that the Son is of a different nature, if one cannot
be said of that, the nature of which is different. William A.
Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, 1970 Volume
3. pp. 291-292.Jump up ^ In the historic debate, Thomas
Emlyn, George Benson, Richard Porson, Samuel Lee and John
Oxlee denied these references as demonstrating the verse as
in the Bible of Fulgentius, by a set of differing rationales.
Henry Thomas Armfield reviews debate theories and history and
offered his conclusion "Surely it is quite clear from the
writings of Fulgentius, both that he had himself seen the
verse in the copies of the New Testament; and that those with
whom he argues had not the objection to offer that the verse
was not then extant in St. John's Epistle." Armfield, The
Three Witnesses, the Disputed Text, 1883, p.171.
Armfield also reviews the Facundus and Fulgentius comparison
in depth. Facundus and Fulgentius were often compared in
their Cyprian references, with Facundus quoted in support of
Cyprian being involved in a mystical
interpretation.Jump up ^ At the time of the correspondence
of Erasmus with Lee and Stunica, the Vulgate Prologue was the
single principle early church writing evidence discussed.
Evidences like Cyprian's Unity of the Church and the Council
of Carthage were either unavailable or omitted in the dialog.
Erasmus accepted this Prologue as from Jerome, and accused
Jerome of falsifying the scripture.Jump up ^ When the theory was originally
promulgated the earliest extant Vulgate with the Prologue was
dated to no earlier than the 800s. Raymond Brown indicates
modern attributions for the conjectured Prologue authorship
as "Vincent of Lerini (d. 450) and to Peregrinus
(Künstle, Ayuso Marazuela), the fifth-century Spanish
editor of the Vg." The Epistles of John pp.782-783,
1982.Jump up ^ Fuldensis could be accurately dated
as very close to 546 AD, much closer to the lifetime of
Jerome 347-420. Fuldensis was a manuscript copied under the
ecclesiastical leadership of Victor of Capua. In Nov. 1897,
Thomas Joseph Lamy in the American Ecclesiastical
Review, The Decision of the Holy Office on the Comma
Johanneum , reviewed on pp. 72-74 the Vulgate Prologue. Lamy
emphasized how Codex Fuldensis strengthened the case for
Jerome's authorship of the Prologue. Even before the
Fuldensis discovery, Antoine Eugène Genoud in the
Sainte Bible commentary described the reasons given
for claiming a forgery as frivoles (i.e. frivolous).
Sainte Bible en latin et en français, Volume 5,
1839, pp.681-682.Jump up ^ The Latin is "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" –
Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol.
70, col. 1373. HTML version at Cassiodorus Complexiones
in Epistulas apostolorum English text based on Porson
and Maynard p.46.Jump up ^ Lamy says that in going through 1
John 5 Cassiodorus "mystically interprets water, blood and
spirit as three symbols concerning the Passion of Christ. To
those three earthly symbols in terra, he opposes the
three heavenly witnesses in coelo the Father, the
Son and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one God.
Evidently we have here verse 7. Cassiodorus does not cite it
textually, but he gives the sense of it. He puts it in
opposition to verse 8, for he contrasts in coelo
with in terra. The last words: Et hi tres unus
est Deus can be referred only to verse 7, since
Cassiodorus refers tria unum sunt of verse 8, to the
Passion of Our Saviour… Maffei's conclusion is therefore
justified when he says : Verse 7 was read not only in
Africa, but in the most ancient and the most accurate Codices
of the Roman Church, since Cassiodorus recommended to the
monks to seek, above all else, the correct copies and to
compare them with the Greek."Jump up ^ Shortly after the Maffei
publication, in 1722, George Wade wrote of the significance
of the Cassiodorus scholarship and reference: "And what have
the Arians to say to this ? Is this a forged Piece of
Cassiodorius ? No. Did he read it only in some corrupted
copies of his own Age. The Character of the man will let us
suspect this. How pressing is he with those of his Monastery
to make use of the very best M.S. and such as had been
carefully collated with, and corrected by the Greek Text.;
nay not only so, but that, in all doubtful places, they
should be govern'd by the Authority of two or three ancient
copies…… let us never hear more of this verse, being
intruded into the version of St. Jerom. Tis evident from
innumerable places of these Commentaries, that St. Jerom's
was not the Translation he made Use of, but one a great deal
older; and yet it no less evidently appears, that this
Passage was found in it. A short inquiry into the
doctrine of the Trinity, as it is laid down in Holy
Scripture, p. 86, 1722. George Wade also looked closely
at the question as to whether this was actually Cassiodorus
using the Greek writing of Clement of Alexandria, from 200
AD, as indicated by the "learned Dupin".Jump up ^ Some see Testimonia Divinae
Scripturae as earlier than Isidore. "Most learned
critics believe to be more ancient than St. Isidore". John
MacEvilly An Exposition of the Epistles of St. Paul, 1875,
p.424, M'Carthy: "The question of authorship is not, however,
important in our controversy, provided the antiquity of the
document be admitted"Jump up ^ "For the Spirit too is truth just
as the Father and the Son are. The truth of all three is one,
just as the nature of all three is one, just as the nature of
all three is one. For there are three in heaven who furnish
testimony to Christ: the Father, the Word, and the Spirit.
The Father, who not once but twice sent forth his voice from
the sky and publicly testified that this was his uniquely
beloved Son in whom he found no offence; the Word, who, by
performing so many miracles and by dying and rising again,
showed that he was the true Christ, both God and human alike,
the reconciler of God and humankind; the holy Spirit, who
descended on his head at baptism and after the resurrection
glided down upon the disciples. The agreement of these three
is absolute. The Father is the author, the Son the messenger,
the Spirit the inspirer. There are likewise three things on
earth which attest Christ: the human spirit which he laid
down on the cross, the water, and the blood which flowed from
his side in death. And these three witnesses are in
agreement. They testify that he was a man. The first three
declare him to be God." (p. 174)Collected Works of
Erasmus – Paraphrase on the First Epistle of John
Translator – John J BatemanJump up ^ The text shown in this photograph
is part of 1 John chapter 5, from mid-verse 3 to mid-verse
10.Jump up ^ Stunica, one of the Complutensian
editors, published in 1520 Annotationes Iacobi Lopidis
Stunicae contra Erasmum Roterodamum in defensionem
tralationis Noui Testamenti, which included half of a
page on the heavenly witnesses. Later Erasmus correspondence
on the verse included a letter to William Farel in 1524 in
which Erasmus noted the lack of Greek manuscript support and
the verse not being used in the Arian controversies. In 1531
Erasmus corresponded with Alberto Pio, a critic of
Erasmus.Jump up ^ Kettner referred to the heavenly
witnesses as "the most precious of Biblical pearls, the
fairest flower of the New Testament, the compendium by way of
analogy of faith in the Trinity." Conybeare, History of
New Testament Criticism, 1910, p. 71. In 1697 Kettner
wrote Insignis ac celeberrimi de SS. trinitate loci, qui
I. Joh. V, 7. extat, divina autoritas sensus et usus
dissertatione theol. demonstratus and in 1713
Vindiciae novae dicti vexatissimi de tribus in coelo
testibus, 1 Joh. V, 7 and Historia dicti Johannei de
Sanctissima Trinitate, I Joh.cap.V vers.7[Jump up ^ And, indeed, what the sun is in the
world, what the heart is in a man, what the needle is in the
mariner's compass, this verse is in the epistle.". (John
Wesley, with appreciation to Bengelius, Explanatory Notes,
1754)Jump up ^ The footnotes included "In 1689,
the papist Simon strove to be free; in 1707, the protestant
Mill wished to be a slave; in 1751, the Arminian Wetstein
used the liberty of his times, and of his sect." The
history of the decline and fall of the Roman
empireJump up ^ In 1822 Thomas Burgess published
Adnotationes Millii which compiled in one spot writings on
the verse sections by John Mill, Wetstein, Bengel, John
Selden, Matthaei, John Fell and others.Jump up ^ Denounced by evangelist Thomas
DeWitt Talmage in a speech covered in the New York Times
"Taking up the Bible he turned to the fifth chapter of John,
but passed it with the remark, 'I will not read that, for it
has been abolished or made doubtful by the new revision.'The
Revision Denounced; Strong Language from the Rev. Mr.
Talmage, New York Times, June 6, 1881]. See
also Peter Johannes Thuesen, In Discordance with the
Scriptures: American Protestant Battles Over Translating the
Bible 2002, p. 54.Jump up ^ Daniel McCarthy: …the first to
expunge v. 7. altogether (J. D. Michaelis gives that honor to
an 'Anonymous Englishman' who published the N. T, Greek and
English, London, 1729, with a text revised on the principles
of 'common sense'), but his rash example was followed
unhappily by the three ablest critics of our own day, Scholz,
a Catholic Prof, in Bonn, Lachmann, and Tischendorf; and
approved by Wegscheid, Michaelis, Davidson, Horne, Alford,
Tregelles, &c; so that it may be truly said the current
of Protestant opinion in England and Germany is now as strong
against, as it was for the genuineness of the controverted
words even within this century. The change is unaccountable
when we bear in mind that the evidence for the verse, both
negative and positive, has been increasing every day, whilst
the arguments against its authenticity were brought out as
fully by Erasmus as by any modern critic. The Epistles
and Gospels of the Sundays, 1866, p. 512. The Anonymous
Englishman is Daniel Mace.Jump up ^ Oft-repeated is "that these words
are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament
is certain…" from Metzger's Textual Commentary on the
Greek New Testament, 1971, p. 716.Jump up ^ Summarized with pictures on the web
site KJVToday Umlaut in Codex Vaticanus, although
the conclusion "an early scribe of Vaticanus at least knew of
a significant textual variant here" is only one theory.
Discussions have continued on the Evangelical Textual
Criticism web site, the Yahoogroups textualcriticism forum
and helpful is the web page of Wieland Willker, Codex
Vaticanus Graece 1209, B/03 The Umlauts.Jump up ^ David Charles Parker, while lauding
the 1881 Westcott and Hort "purified text", writes of "the
ridiculous business of the Johannine Comma" Textual
Criticism and Theology, 2009, p. 324. Parker writes of
"the presence in a few manuscripts, most of them Latin". The
actual number is many thousands of manuscripts. Daniel
Wallace comments that the verse "infected the history of the
English Bible in a huge way", referring to a "rabid path".
The Comma Johanneum in an Overlooked Manuscript,
July 2, 2010 James White, even while engaging in discussions
on the Puritanboard forums, wrote "I draw the line with the
Comma. Anyone who defends the insertion of the
Comma is, to me, outside the realm of meaningful
scholarship, unless, I guess, they likewise support the
radical reworking of the entire text of the New Testament
along consistent lines … plainly uninspired insertion." The
Comma Johanneum Again March 4, 2006, also March 16, 2006. In
an earlier day, Eberhard Nestle wrote that "The fact that it
is still defended even from the Protestant side is
interesting only from a pathological point of view."
Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New
Testament, 1901, p. 327, translation by William Edie
1899 German of the German pathologisches.Jump up ^ Newton accused Jerome as being the
likely source of the heavenly witnesses, asserting that
Jerome "inserted the Trinity in express words into his
version … the first upon record that inserted it, is
Jerome: if the preface to the canonical epistles, which goes
under his name, be his. … he altered the public reading".
Nonetheless, Newton did acknowledge many other references in
the time of the doctrinal battles, including "Eugenius bishop
of Carthage, in the seventh year of Hunneric king of the
Vandals, anno Christi 484, in the summary of his faith
exhibited to the king … Fulgentius, another African bishop,
disputing against the same Vandals, cited it again, and
backed it with the fore-mentioned place of Cyprian … It
occurs also frequently in Vigilius Tapsensis, another African
bishop, contemporary to Fulgentius … the feigned
disputation of Athanasius with Arius at Nice." The pre-Jerome
Priscillian reference was unknown at the time. And Newton's
handling of Cyprian is complex, as he accepted the Cyprian
text linguistically, but rejected it textually only on the
perceived lack of additional supporting evidences: "These
places of Cyprian being, in my opinion, genuine, seem so
apposite to prove the testimony of the Three in heaven, that
I should never have suspected a mistake in it, could I but
have reconciled it with the ignorance I meet with of this
reading in the next age." As to the Newton historical summary
quote above, George Travis addressed this in Letters to
Edward Gibbon (1785) p. 264.Jump up ^ The Freisinger Fragments, dated
from the 5th to 7th centuries, were published in 1876 by
Zeigler and were not known at the time of this list of
negative evidences in 1808. Similarly, the 7th-century dating
of Codex Legionensis was not assigned until 20th
century.Jump up ^ The Priscillian citation was
discovered and published in the latter 1800s, fully refuting
this unusual conjecture of Virgilius Tapsensis forgery. And
leading to new, albeit short-lived, theories of Priscillian
as the verse author, as described in the article.Jump up ^ In a commentary on the Epistle in
later years, Luther relates to the heavenly witnesses as
scripture: "This is the testimony in heaven, which is
afforded by three witnesses—is in heaven, and remaineth
in heaven. This order is to be carefully noted; namely, that
the witness who is last among the witnesses in heaven, is
first among the witnesses on earth, and very properly…
(John) appeals to a twofold testimony :the one is in
heaven, the other on earth.. this divine testimony is
twofold. It is given partly in heaven, partly on earth: that
given in heaven has three witnesses, the Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost: the other, given on earth, has also three
witnesses; namely, the spirit, the water, and the blood."
Knittel pp. 93-95Jump up ^ 'r' in the UBS-4 also 'it-q' and
Beuron 64 are apparatus names today. These fragments were
formerly known as Fragmenta Monacensia, as in the
Handbook to the textual criticism of the New
Testament, by Frederic George Kenyon, 1901, p.
178.Jump up ^ "The declaration adds that there
was no intention of stopping investigation of the passage by
Catholic scholars who act in a moderate and temperate way and
tend to think the verse not genuine; provided, however, that
such scholars promise to accept the judgment of the Church
which is by Christ's appointment the sole guardian and
custodian of Holy Scripture (Enchiridion Bibttcum. Documenta
Ecdesiastica Sacrum Scripturam Spectantia, Romae, apud
Librarian! Vaticanam 1927, pp. 46-47)". Explanation given in
Under Orders The Autobiography of William Laurence
Sullivan, p. 186, 1945. Sullivan had written an article
in 1906 opposing authenticity in the New York
Review.
References[edit]
Constructs such as ibid., loc. |
Jump up ^ NIV,NASB,ESV,NRSV
translationsJump up ^ Nova Vulgata, Epistula I
Ioannis. The Nova Vulgata has not been translated into
English.Jump up ^ A compleat history of the canon and
writers of the books of the Old and New Testament: Luis Ellis
Du Pin p.79Jump up ^ Matthew Henry Commentary,
Exposition of All the Books, Vol 5, 1803, p.
644-645. The Commentary emphasized internal arguments for
authenticity. 1 John completed by London minister John
Reynolds after Henry passed, as explained on Puritanboard. A
complementary genuine or spurious, expunged or
admitted, section is given by John Hey in Lectures in
Divinity, 1796, pp. 289-290.Jump up ^ Richard Simon, A critical
history of the text of the New Testament, 1689
p.123.Jump up ^ Rob Iliffe, Friendly Criticism:
Richard Simon, John Locke, Isaac Newton and the Johannine
Comma 2006, p. 143 in Scripture and
ScholarshipJump up ^ William Craig Brownlee, On the
Authenticity of 1 John v.7 Christian Advocate 1825,
p. 167Jump up ^ Richard Porson, Letters to Travis,
1829, p.61.Jump up ^ Thomas Turton, A Vindication of
the Literary Character of Richard Porson, 1824, p.124.
Griesbach: "Igitur comma controversum septimum praecipue, ne
dicam unice, nititur testimonio, fide et auctoritate Vigilii
Tapsensis, et librorum huic attributurum auctori, ante quem
nemo clare id excitavit."Jump up ^ John Oxlee, On the Heavenly
Witnesses, Christian Remembrancer 1822, p.
135Jump up ^ John Selby Watson The life of
Richard Porson 1861, p. 73Jump up ^ Scrivener, Plain
Introduction, pp. 461-462, 1861.Jump up ^ Joseph Barber Lightfoot, On a Fresh
Revision of the English New Testament, p.25, 1871.Jump up ^ Léon Labauche, God and
man; lectures on dogmatic theology, 1916 p.
43Jump up ^ Alan England Brooke, Critical
and Exegetical Commentary on the Johannine Epistles, p.
198, 1912Jump up ^ ibid p.163.
Jump up ^ The Harvard theological
review, Volume 15, 1922, p. 159Jump up ^ Raymond Brown, The Gospel and
Epistles of John: A Concise Commentary p.120,
1988.Jump up ^ Raymond Brown, Epistles of
John, p.130, 1982.Jump up ^ Jaroslav Pelikan, Whose Bible
Is It? A Short History of the Scriptures, Penguin Books
Ltd, 2005, p. 15Jump up ^ Bruce Metzger writes: "Apparently
the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to
symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three
witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an
interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal
note that afterwards found its way into the text." A
Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament
(2002/1971), p. 648.Jump up ^ The Textual Problem in 1 John
5:7-8Jump up ^ A calm inquiry into the
Scripture doctrine concerning the person of Christ, p.
333, 1817.Jump up ^ Israel Worsley, An enquiry into
the origin of Christmas-Day, 1820, p.66. The British
Review reviewed the controversy and spoke of such phrases as
"tokens of intellectual weakness … culpable imbecility of
mind". The Unitarian Controversy, 1821, p.
165.Jump up ^ Robert Taylor: "admitted on all
hands to be forgeries … Acts xx. 28.—1 Timothy iii.
10.—1 John v. 7.—These are admitted to be of the
utmost importance, bearing on the most essential doctrines,
yet are wilful and wicked interpolations.." The diegesis:
being a discovery of the origin, evidences, and early history
of Christianity, p.421, 1829. See also Syntagma of
the Evidences, p.44, 1828Jump up ^ Everard Bierrer, The Evolution
of Religions, p. 290, 1906.Jump up ^ Philip Schaff. History of the
Christian Church. A.D. 1-311., 1888, p. 412.Jump up ^ Charles Taze Russell The Fact and
Philophy of the Atonement, 1899, p. 61.Jump up ^ F C. Conybeare, History of New
Testament Criticism, 1910, pp. 91-98. (title in Table of
Contents). The section on the heavenly witnesses was followed
by his accusation that "in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Spirit" in Matthew 28:19 had similarly
been "revised and interpolated by orthodox copyists" and that
"we can trace their perversions of the text…expose the
fraud." Conybeare also took textual positions that were
related to his unusual position on the virgin
birth.Jump up ^ Preserved Smith, The age of the
reformation, 1920, p.564Jump up ^ Gordon Campbell and Thomas N.
Corns, John Milton: Life, Work, and Thought, 2008,
p. 378. Similar in God: A Literary and Pictorial
History, 2003.Jump up ^ Bart Ehrman, The Orthodox
Corruption of Scripture, 1996, p. 45.Jump up ^ Vindiciiœ
Priestleianœ, p. 227, 1788.Jump up ^ Nathaniel Ellsworth Cornwall,
American Church Review, Vol 29 pp. 509-528 The
genuineness of I. John, v. 7 proved by neglected witnesses,
1877, from pp.511, 523.Jump up ^ "Fragments of Clemens Alexandrius",
translated by Rev. William Wilson, section 3.Jump up ^ Eclogae propheticae
13.1Ben David, Monthly Review, 1826 p. 277)Jump up ^ Bengel, John Gill, Ben David and
Thomas BurgessJump up ^ Systematic Theology: Roman
Catholic Perspectives,, Francis Schüssler Fiorenza,
John P. Galvin, 2011, p. 159, the Latin is "Ita connexus
Patris in Filio, et Filii in Paracleto, tres efficit
cohaerentes alterum ex altero: qui tres unum sunt, non unus
quomodo dictum est, Ego et Pater unum sumus"Jump up ^ Arthur Cleveland Coxe, Latin
Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian 1903, p.631
English on p. 621, left column, bottom.Jump up ^ John Kaye, The Ecclesiastical
History of the Second and Third Centuries, Illustrated from
the Writings of Tertullian 1826. p. 550.Jump up ^ Nolan, Inquiry, p. 297 Although
Nolan does study the Praxeas citation in some depth
independently.Jump up ^ Daniel McCarthy, Epistles and
Gospels of the Sunday, 1866, p.514.^ Jump up to: a b c d Georg
Strecker, The Johannine Letters (Hermeneia);
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996. "Excursus: The Textual
Tradition of the "Comma Johanneum"".Jump up ^ August Neander, The History of
the Christian Religion and the Church During the Three First
Centuries, Volume 2, 1841, p. 184. Latin, Item de pudic.
21. Et ecclesia proprie et principaliter ipse est spiritus,
in quo est trinitas unius divinitatis Pater et Filius et
Spiritus Sanctus. Tischendorf apparatusJump up ^ Documents in Early Christian
Thought, editors Maurice Wiles and Mark Santer, 1977,
p.178, Latin Bibliotheca Patrum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum
Selecta 1839.Jump up ^ Burgess, Tracts on the Divinity
of Christ, 1820, pp.333-334. Irish Ecclesiastical
Review, Traces of the Text of the Three Heavenly
Witnesses, 1869 p. 274]Jump up ^ Westcott and Hort, The New
Testament in the Original Greek Note on Selected
Readings, 1 John v 7,8, 1882, p104.^ Jump up to: a b c d e Catholic
Encyclopedia Vol 8 of 15, Epistles of St John,
Walter Drum, 1910 pp. 435-438, Chief Editor Charles George
Herbermann. Online HTML for this section of the Catholic
Encyclopedia at newadvent.org. "Published 1910. New York:
Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy
Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley,
Archbishop of New York".Jump up ^ Horne, critical study 1933, p.
451Jump up ^ Jerome, Lives of Illustrious
Men, translated by Ernest Cushing Richardson, footnote:
"Bishop 353, died about 392".Jump up ^ William Hales, Inspector,
Antijacobin Review, Sabellian Controversy, Letter
XII 1816, p. 590. Latin " Denique Dominus: Petam, inquit, a
Patre meo et alium advocatum dabit vobis (Ibid., 16). Sic
alius a Filio Spiritus, sicut a Patre Filius. Sic tertia in
Spiritu, ut in Filio secunda persona: unus tamen Deus omnia,
tres unum sunt. Phoebadius, Liber Contra ArianosJump up ^ Griesbach, Diatribe, p.
700,Jump up ^ Introduction historique et
critique aux libres de Nouveau Testament 1861,
p.564.Jump up ^ Catholic Encyclopedia: "The silence
of the great and voluminous Augustine and the variation in
form of the text in the African Church are admitted facts
that militate against the canonicity of the three
witnesses."Jump up ^ The City of God, Volume 1,
trans. by Marcus Dods 1888 p. 197, Latin: Deus itaque summus
et verum cum Verbo suo et Spiritu sancto, quae tria unum
sunt, Deus unus omnipotensJump up ^ e.g. Franz Anton Knittel, Thomas
Burgess, Arthur-Marie Le Hir, Francis Patrick Kenrick,
Charles Forster and Pierre RambouilletJump up ^ Homilies, 1849, p. 1224.
Latin: et quid est: finis christus? quia christus deus, et
finis praecepti caritas, et deus caritas quia et pater et
filius et spiritus sanctus unum sunt.Jump up ^ Principles of Textual
Criticism, p. 506, 1820.Jump up ^ Thomas Joseph Lamy The Decision
of the Holy Office on the "Comma Joanneum" pp.449-483
American ecclesiastical review, 1897.Jump up ^ Thomas Burgess, A vindication
of I John, V. 7, p.46, 1821.Jump up ^ The Acts of the Council of
Chalcedon, Vol 3, The Second Session, pp. 22-23, 2005,
Richard Price, editorJump up ^ Edward Rochie Hardy Christology
of the Later Fathers 1954, p. 368Jump up ^ Richard Porson, Letters to
Archdeacon Travis 1790 p.378Jump up ^ ibid p. 401
Jump up ^ Thomas Burgess, An introduction to
the controversy on the disputed verse of st. John, 1835, p.
xxviJump up ^ ibid p.xxxi
Jump up ^ Robert Ernest Wallis, translator,
The writings of Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, Volume
1 1868, p.382Jump up ^ Daniel B. Wallace, "The Comma
Johanneum and Cyprian".
Página anterior | Volver al principio del trabajo | Página siguiente |