Comma Johanneum: 1 John 5:7,8

MSS = Manuscripts (plural)
MS = Manuscript (singular)
TR = Textus Receptus
Comma = Refers to Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8)






1 John 5:7-8 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. KJV


1 John 5:7-8, Trinitarianism and its Authenticity:

I do not hold to KJV Onlyism in any sense yet I do not condemn anyone who uses the KJV exclusively or another version. Personally, I use various versions (NKJV, NRSV, NLT, NIV, ESV, NET, etc.) for study and reference but also see the logic in using a single translation for pulpit and congregational use in order to avoid confusion. That said, I do not believe we can rightly suggest any version to be inspired. Only the original autographs were inspired in the Hebrew, some Aramaic and Greek languages. A version is exactly that—a version.

In this case, our English translations are versions of texts not in our native language. Attributing inspiration to the English texts is paramount to attributing inspiration, also, to those translating the text themselves. This fact should be clearly taught to and understood by all lay persons as to avoid confusion as well. Often times lay persons feel a particular English translation, most often the KJV, is the inerrant and infallible Word of God. This false notion gives rise to confusion especially over this very issue.

There have been many questions concerning this portion of text from Johns First Epistle. As Daniel Aikin points out, “This is not a question of the inspiration of the text but of the transmission of the text. John’s letter, whatever the original, is inerrant. What must be established is what the autographs actually said.” This is important to bear in mind as one seeks the truth in this matter.

Although supporters of the Trinitarian view utilize various texts, the Comma is a popular Trinitarian proof text. In fact, Bruce Metzger notes this of the Comma, “The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian).” The first (15176) and second edition (1519) of Erasmus’ Greek text did not contain the Comma.

Thomas Holland suggests that the Comma “is a wonderful testimony to the Heavenly Trinity and should be maintained in our English versions.” William Burkitt, around 1703, suggested the Comma was omitted purposely by Arians in attempt to dilute Trinitarianism . Edward Hill, on the other hand, suggests the Comma could have been interpreted to be Sabellian and therefore considered an heretical addition. Hill suggests, “It is possible, therefore, that the Sabellian heresy brought the Johannine comma into disfavor with orthodox Christians.”

Metzger goes on to call this text a “totally spurious passage.” Aikin also notes, “Not one Greek or Latin Church Father ever quotes this passage in the first four and a half centuries. This is especially revealing in light of the many controversies revolving around the Trinity (especially Sabellianism and Arianism). If the Johannine Comma was a part of the original text, then what would be a better passage to quote in order to prove the Trinity? Nicea (A.D. 325) and Chalcedon (A.D. 451) almost certainly would have taken advantage of it. The absence of such usage causes one to doubt seriously the authenticity of this passage.”

Evidence for Comma Johanneum:

Portions of 1 John 5:7-8 are commonly referred to as the Comma Johanneum and I will reference it as the “Comma” hereon. While being found in several Latin mss (abbrev. for manuscripts) the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7, 8) is only found in eight Greek mss and these give evidences of being translations from the Latin Vulgate into Greek. The Codex Montfortianus is the oldest Greek mss containing the Comma and dates from the early sixteenth century. Four of the eight mss contain the Comma as merely a variant reading and are found in the margins which evidence it as a later addition.

All ancient versions such as the Syriac or Coptic, except Latin, lack the Comma as well. It should also be noted that the Comma is absent from the early forms of Old Latin and the Vulgate issued by Jerome. Concerning the Latin inclusion of the Comma the comments of Metzger are extremely noteworthy:

“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 (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. 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. In the fifth century the gloss was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy as part of the text of the Epistle, and from the sixth century onwards it is found more and more frequently in manuscripts of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate. In these various witnesses the wording of the passage differs in several particulars.”

Desiderius Erasmus was the Greek scholar that rejected the inclusion of the Comma in his first and second editions of his Greek New Testament. This collection of Greek mss would eventually be called the Textus Receptus. This collection would also become the text base for translation of Martin Luther’s German Bible, William Tyndale’s New Testament, and the King James Version. Of course, Erasmus was not without his critics and was accused of negligence. To answer these replies Erasmus asserted that there was no Greek mss with the inclusion of the Comma and if there was it would have been included.

Aikin comments, “Shortly thereafter, a Greek manuscript containing the Johannine Comma was shown to Erasmus. It is almost certain that this manuscript was produced simply to induce Erasmus to include the Johannine Comma in his Greek New Testament. Even though Erasmus suspected this Greek manuscript to have been based on the Latin, there is doubt as to whether Erasmus knew that the manuscript had been created for the purpose of encouraging him to include the Johannine Comma. In the third edition of his Greek New Testament, Erasmus included the extra text (although he omitted the passage from later editions).”

In any event, the manuscript which forced Erasmus to reverse his stand is believed to be miniscule (referring to the script size) 61, or Codex Montfortianus, kept at Trinity College, Dublin. Critics believe that this manuscript was written for the special purpose of refuting Erasmus. In this regards Metzger notes, “the Greek manuscript had probably been written in Oxford in 1520 by a Franciscan friar named Froy who took the disputed words from the Latin Vulgate.”

The Comma then has become a minority reading in the Greek mss by most, if not all, scholars. Most contemporary versions, excluding the New King James Version, see it as an interpolation and exclude it from the main text and place it as a marginal note. Here are some six contemporary examples:

7 There are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree. NRSV

7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood —and these three are in agreement. HCSB

7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. NIV

7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree. ESV

7 For there are three that testify, 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are in agreement. NET

A Dangerous Dilemma or a Positive Opportunity?

Often when dialoguing this very issue pastors and teachers often suggest, sometimes with great angst, that discussing the issue of the Comma Johanneum is potentially confusing and devastating to a lay person’s faith in the Holy Scriptures. I believe the hesitancy to be wise but the fault is our own. Have we exalted an English translation of the Scriptures to the point that our hearers see it as inspired and infallible? Have we taught our hearers properly regarding the inspiration and transmission of the texts of Scripture? Have we taught about the various translations of Scripture and their functions or purpose?

No matter what we decide on the matter the Comma will not disappear nor will other considerations, such as the long or shorter ending of Mark 16. In our increasingly secular society atheists, agnostics and skeptics alike are recognizing and raising these very issues to whether we like it or not. At this point, the atheist, agnostic and skeptic are doing the teaching and not the minister. This has potentially worse affects upon a person’s faith especially if they have a too highly exalted view of an English translation.

Even other believers, from a church who uses another translation or those of other faiths discuss and are aware of this issue. It is only a matter of time before a lay person that is not in the know hears of such issues and wonders if they can truly have faith in the Word of God. The danger here is that the believer may be afraid to approach their pastor or teacher for fear of being rebellious or raising an issue their leaders are not familiar with. If they do not voice their concerns and instead keep the issue hidden within greater damage to their faith can also be done.

In either situation we are faced with a dilemma. The dilemma can be dangerous or it can be viewed as an opportunity to further engage believers in their study of the Scriptures. Paul, writing to Timothy at Ephesus, compels us:

2 Timothy 2:15, Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. NKJV

Although this letter is written to Timothy, a leader in the Church, the Word of God has been preserved for leaders and anyone who reads from its pages. Paul charges Timothy to be diligent or eagerly do ones best to present ourselves before God, with no fear of shame because they have “rightly” or accurately handled the truth. This should give all of us encouragement to study and push ourselves further in the study of God’s Word.

Too often we study or read the Scriptures to merely mine for “gold nuggets” that make for catchy phrases or interesting quips. Although there may be benefit in this it is merely a superficial method of discerning the Scriptures which themselves beckon us to look into them deeper.

Using Modern Translations:

At some point a pastor or teacher may consider using a modern translation. Previously I listed several translations of 1 John 5:7. J.R. Ensey, former president of Texas Bible College, recommends the ESV from his online bookstore and also uses the NIV to cite Scriptures from his blog . I would recommend either version for study but would encourage a literal translation, such as the ESV or NKJV, for use in congregational readings. Versions such as the NIV or New Living Translation are not literal translations. A literal translation seeks to offer the words of the original language word or word in the English language.

David Norris, professor at Urshan Graduate School of Theology, concerning using various translations, has rightly noted “Change is inevitable; nonetheless, change is almost always painful. For many, any move away from the KJV strikes at the very core of their religious identity.” Norris has also noted “If and when individual congregations decide to “officially” utilize other versions along with the KJV” there are at least three things to keep in mind.

1. “Bible studies on how the Bible came to us should first be offered.” He also suggests that “In such a study, saints need to hear humility in the voice of the teacher, not pride.”

2. “The teacher needs to leave room for people in the congregation to disagree with the perspective being taught.”

3. “Along with this, another thing that can go a long way in a congregation being open to change is when the preacher offers occasional statements as to why a particular passage from another version is a good reading.”

He also suggests that new churches have the opportunity to select a modern version with less problems. Older churches however will have to be handled differently with wisdom and care since some “have a lifetime of hearing and reading the KJV”. I believe the KJV is a good translation. In it we can find Gospel truth as in most other translations.

We should remember that none of the variants and errors that we see heralded or alluded to take away from any doctrine that we hold. No essential doctrine is affected by the absence or inclusion of the Comma Johanneum either.


NOTES:

1. Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, electronic ed., Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001). 198; 199.

2. Bruce Manning Metzger and United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994). 648.

3. Holland, Thomas. Crowned With Glory: The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version Copyright 2000 by Dr. Thomas Holland. All Rights Reserved. Used with permission.

4. Burkitt, William. Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament (Gospels published 1700, Acts to Revelation published 1703). 1 John 5:8

5. Hill, Edwards F. The King James Version Defended Copyright 1956, 1973 by Edward Freer Hills. Copyright 1984 by Marjorie J. Hills.

6. Bruce Manning Metzger, The Bible in Translation : Ancient and English Versions (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001). 80.

7. Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 3 d ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.

8. http://www.advanceministries.org/

9. http://jrenseyblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/

10. Norris, David K. “First of All—Do No Harm”. Symposium paper response presented at 2009 UGST Symposium.



JN Anderson

The Quest for Meaning:

Some of you may have heard the story of cynical Greek philosopher Diogenes and His lamp. Diogenes walked the streets of Athens around the 5th Century barefoot and supposedly not wearing the proper attire of the day. He would walk with a lantern during the day time as though he were looking for something in the dark. Diogenese would walk up with the lantern and thrust it into a persons face and say something like "I am looking for an honest man." Diogenes supposedly never found the "honest man". No matter how sincere our quest is it is possible then that how we go about it can be counterproductive for us.

From the womb we begin a quest for meaning. Our questions as toddlers were not just a waste of time. This is why we will never get away from a quest. The very first question of the Westminister Shorter Catechism is "What is the chief end of man?" It concisely replies, "Man’ s chief end is to glorify God, (1 Cor. 10:31, Rom. 11:36) and to enjoy him for ever. (Ps. 73:25–28)"(1) This of course is true and we can know that it is so since God has gone on public record about some matters through the Scriptures.


However, even Job who remained faithful to God questioned God for the meaning of the pain and suffering of his life. I believe there are truths that are clear or at least discernible to the saved and the unsaved alike. Man is depraved and fallen but we know this by our reason and thinking faculties therefore we must realize then that we are made in the image of God and in some way reflect this. As we can all attest to though there is also theological diversity among us as well. Yet, in spite of our diversity, we act as if we have a script of certitude in some areas of the Scriptures and God.


Applying holiness principles to today is a quest as well. We are all diverse on how to implement or appropriate them. The points of our diversity speak of a quest. A quest to apply meaning from the ancient times and theological principles of Scripture to the modern times of now. The reasons I cited above are all related, fundamentally, to our interpretation or application of the Scriptures in some sense.


Take for granted, momentarily, that there are indeed clear and evident truths in Scripture. As we start our journey, or quest, through Scripture we find a river that divides us. A river made of ancient culture, language, situation, and time separates us from the text and also hinders our grasping of the actual meaning of the text at times. As an attempt to cross this river, we develop a principilizing bridge to gain accurate meaning in the texts. Each text is different yet it is our pursuit to find the original meaning as well as the universal theological principles that are still relevant for us, today. I believe there are at least four steps in this quest, that have proved useful for me, and that we all should consider:


1. What did it mean to them? The importance of this step is actually priceless because by it we should determine how or in what way the text actually applied to the original audience. Reading and observation, not interpretation, are very necessary to come to proper conclusions. The grammar, historicity, and literary context all help to synthesize a coherent observation of what the text meant to the biblical audience.


2. How does it differ for us? This step actually compels us to identify the unique differences between the biblical audience and us, the modern readers. These differences actually form the very river we will later attempt to cross. In this step we take hard looks at the river and identify significant differences between the situations of then and now. We should see how the text offers these differences that may never apply to a NT believer, we also see beyond these cultural, historical, or literary differences that there is universal theological meaning still resting and waiting.


3. What is the principle? After steps one and two are satisfied we focus on crossing the bridge that we have begun. In step one we OBSERVE and find the general differences and became aware of the actual environment of the original author and his audience. In step two we identify significant differences and measure the distance that these create between us and the bible audience. In step three we find the theological principle of the text. The meaning that transcends covenant and time. For example, in Joshua 1:1-9 Joshua is obviously fearful of replacing Moses. God warns him to be “strong and courageous” (NIV) in this time. It is true that we, as Gentile believers, may never lead possibly millions of Israelites across a desert but we are called and commanded of God to serve and as we do God will give us strength and courage to do the job He has placed before us.


4. What does it mean for us? Step four brings about what we actually began to do, in the first place—to find accurate and relevant meaning. Learning how we should apply the theological principles in our lives is what this step attempts to assist. We should examine the principle we have found to see just how it applies in our real-life situations. Some texts offer many principles others very few.


This is not THE list, but here are some guidelines(2) for developing theological principles that may prove useful:


1. The principle should be reflected in the text.
2. The principle should be timeless and not tied to a specific situation.
3. The principle should not be culturally bound.
4. The principle should correspond to the teaching of the rest of scriptures.
5. The principle should be relevant to both the biblical and the contemporary audience.


Standing before Greek Stoic and Epicurean philosophers the Apostle Paul stated, "From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us." (Acts 17:26-27 NIV) Ultimately, God desires us to seek Him. To "reach out for him" because He "is not far from any one of us"!

NOTES:

1. The Westminster shorter catechism : With Scripture proofs. 1996 (3rd edition.) (Question 1). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

2. excerpted from Grasping God’s Word-Second Edition, pg. 178 © 2001, 2005 by J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays

Musings About Translations and Textual Criticism:

A translation is moving meaning in one language to another. Or moving a meaning in a text, found in the source language, to the receptor language in such a way that it is coherent. Translation is not a simple task, by any means. For example, different languages have various vocabulary sizes; different languages place words in different forms, phrases, or clauses than another language may be used to. Or, the very fact that no two words are exactly alike should prove the arduous and sober task of translating.

The two main approaches are formal and functional equivalence. Both attempt to bring meaning to its readers but both do it in different fashions that can affect the “meaning”. Formal equivalence seeks to be as “word for word” as possible if not altogether. Functional equivalence (also known as dynamic equivalence) seeks to bring more practical or modern meaning to the ancient texts by rendering them in the receptor language as “meaning for meaning” as opposed to a literal approach. Personally, I favor the former yet will utilize the other as a supplement (typically the NIV). I have read, as I suggested others do previously, Leland Ryken’s work, The Word of God in English and am convinced that we should do our very best at being truthful to the original meaning of the author’s intent. For example, would Shakespeare really be Shakespeare if we edited much of what he wrote? Where does that slippery slope end up?

Some people disdain any other translation other than the KJV. I believe this notion to be idyllic but not accurate. One of the reasons that some uphold the KJV or another earlier text (Douay-Rheims Bible) is because they do not understand a need for textual criticism. The modern insurgence of a earlier manuscripts, than those of the KJV for sure, in the late 40's till today demands we understand the language that the bible was originally written as well as the type of people who were writing it as well as those who were receiving it also. Textual criticism seeks to find the original meaning in the plethora of mss available today. Using various methods in textual criticism the original meaning of the texts can be narrowed. It is equally important to obtain both a “high view” of scriptural authority as well as a positive view towards textual criticism. Usually, a deficiency in one or the other relates to a misunderstanding. Textual criticism seeks to make the original meaning available so that the translators can make clear to us God’s Word.

John 14:31: Understanding the Enigma

The Farewell Discourse (FD heron) is popularly known as being 13:31 – 14:31 of John’s Gospel. D.A. Carson concludes[1] that the discussion concerning the FD encompasses a portion of scripture that has been both a “favorite passage for Christians” for “study and meditation” as well as “considerable debate.” As F.F. Bruce points out,[2] the debate has arisen from certain textual arrangements made by earlier translators of the texts, one being James Moffatt. His unique arrangements are found in his translation of the NT and possibly his commentaries on the Gospel of John. Moffatt held that chapters 15 and 16 were to be placed in the middle of 13:31.

The major challenge in textual structure relates then to the closing remarks of Christ in 14:31, “Arise, let us go from here” (NKJV). These words have proven to be enigmatic for many (hereon this phrase will be referenced as the “Enigma”). Determining the textual relevance or relationship of the data before and after that break is what remains pertinent to the minds of students. “The common response throughout the church’s history has been that the first two chapters, John 13-14, are set in the upper room, while chapters 15-17 continue the dialogue along the road to the Mount of Olives, culminating in the prayer of John 17.”[3]

Many interpret the Enigma in a way that it only has spiritual meaning; possibly akin to “arise, let us march to meet the prince of this world” (See Carson here). I do not hold this view and therefore do not see the Enigma phrase as being a pure theological statement. It is plausible “to regard the remainder of the discourse as taking place in the open air, although in 18:1 Jesus is said to have ‘left’ with his disciples, and it would be necessary to suppose that chs. 15–17 were uttered on the way to the Kidron Valley… Some have supposed that ch. 14 should follow ch. 17, but there is no evidence for such rearrangement. The only other alternative is to suppose that 14:31 implied an intention which was fulfilled some time later. On the whole the first suggestion is fraught with the least difficulties.”[4]

After uttering the Enigma it is also plausible that Jesus simply stood up (the disciples may or may not have stood with him) to finish the discourse before finally departing (in John 18:1), but the disciples lingered and conversation continued. Leon Morris “suggests it is possible that the group probably was slow in making its departure and so Jesus continued to teach them in the room. But he prefers the proposal of Lightfoot that it is a “stage in the teaching.”192I believe it plausible but unlikely that Christ was uttering a spiritual command to get up and prepare “to meet the enemy who is on the way already in the person of Judas and the soldiers with him.”[5]

Borchert states that the “view of speaking en route offers a difficulty that a walking band is hardly a conducive setting for communicating major segments of teaching.” He goes on to advocate that, “total rearrangement theories make the contemporary restructuring person wiser than the original writer and means that the present order is a purposeless collection of writings. However one seeks to solve the problem, I refuse to accept any theory that proposes that the logic of this tightly knit argument is to be disturbed by rearrangement.”[6]

My conclusion seems to be shared, at least in part, gree with that of Carson when he states, “it is possible that Jesus and his disciples did not in fact leave until after John 17. Anyone who has frequently invited home ten to twenty graduate students knows how common it is, after someone has announced it is time to go, for another half hour to slip past before anyone makes a serious move to leave.”

Good reason for this delay could stem from Christ’s earlier statements. Consider:

“before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that His hour had come that He should depart from this world to the Father, having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end.” (John 13:1 NKJV)


NOTES:

[1] Carson, D.A. Pillar New Testament Commentary, The Gospel According to John. © 1991 Eerdman Publishing pg. 476

[2] F. F. Bruce, The Gospel and Epistles of John, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1983, reprint 2004) pg. 292

[3] Carson, D.A. Pillar New Testament Commentary, The Gospel According to John. © 1991 Eerdman Publishing pg. 477

[4]Carson, D. A. (1994). New Bible commentary : 21st century edition. Rev. ed. of: The new Bible commentary. 3rd ed. / edited by D. Guthrie, J.A. Motyer. 1970. (4th ed.) (Jn 14:1). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill., USA: Inter-Varsity Press.

[5] THE NET BIBLE®, New English Translation Bible Notes, John 14:31

[6]Borchert, G. L. (2002). Vol. 25B: John 12-21. The new American commentary, New International Version (136). Nashville: Broadman & Holman.