The Johannine Comma
By Kyle Pope
One of the most problematic texts in the
entire New Testament, from the standpoint of manuscript evidence is a passage
found in the King James and New King James Versions, but omitted from virtually
every other English translation since the American Standard Version of 1901.
Marked in red in the chart below, the text is most of 1 John 5:7 and the first
part of 5:8 (as numbered in the NKJV). This passage is usually referred to as the
Johannine (jō-hanən) Comma. Why is this passage disputed,
why do some translations delete it, and why is it present in some texts?
The Case Against
Inclusion
The strongest
argument against the inclusion of the Johannine Comma in the biblical
text is the fact that the passage is absent from all known surviving Greek
manuscripts prior to around 900 A.D.
New King James
Version
6 This is He
who came by water and bloodÑJesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and
blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth.
7 For there are
three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the
Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness on earth:
the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.
|
New American
Standard Bible
6 This is the
one who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but
with the water and with the blood.
7 And it is the
Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
8 For there are
three that bear witness, the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the
three are in agreement.
|
There is also no undisputed quote of this passage by early church writers prior
to around 370 A.D. when it is quoted by the Spanish bishop Priscillian in his Liber
Apologeticus (1.4). Although the passage is present in approximately 95% of
the estimated 10,000 Latin manuscripts that have survived, it is absent from
the two oldest Vulgate manuscripts: Codex Fuldensis (ca. 541-46) and Codex
Amiatinus (ca. 716). It is also absent from surviving manuscripts of ancient
translations such as the Syriac, Coptic, and Ethiopic. This has led the
majority of modern scholars to argue that the passage was either brought into
the text accidentally through a marginal comment being mistakenly included in
the text, or as a deliberate addition during some period when the triune nature
of God was being debated.
The Case For
Inclusion
While this
evidence might seem conclusive, a closer look at the facts demands that we use
great caution before rejecting this text too quickly. First, while it is true
that the Johannine Comma is present in only 10-11 late copies of the
5600 surviving Greek New Testament manuscripts, we should note that only around
500 of these actually include 1 John. Most are fragmentary in nature and not
full volumes of all New Testament books. Of these only ten are themselves
earlier than the 10th century.
One of these, the 4th century Codex Vaticanus has three dots in the
margin to the left of the words “there are three,” which Philip B. Payne
and Paul Canart have proven was a technique used as a scribal notation to show
awareness of alternate readings (112-13).
The earliest
surviving Greek manuscripts of 1 John date to the time of Priscillian’s
undisputed quote of 1 John 5:7. This demands that we consider—if Priscillian
quoted this passage would it not indicate its existence before his time and the
time these Greek manuscripts were copied? Opponents to inclusion once argued
that Priscillian himself had written the passage, but defenders of the text
argue that earlier references to it prove its existence long before his time.
For example, some time around 177 A.D. Athenagoras in his Plea for the
Christians wrote of the unity of the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit
(10), which some have argued is an allusion to this text. Tertullian, around
215 in his work Against Praxeas while commenting on the Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit wrote, “the three are one” (25)—using the very wording of this
passage. A similar quote is found in a work attributed to Origen (ca. 184-253),
but possibly written by one of his students called Selecta in Psalmos, which
says of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, “for the three are one” (12.1633, on
Ps. 122). Perhaps the most compelling example of this is in a text written
about 250 by Cyprian known as his Treatise. He writes, “The Lord says,
‘I and the Father are one,’ and again, of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Spirit it is written, ‘and the three are one’” (1.6, Pope).
Cyprian’s first quote is from John 10:30, but only in the Johannine Comma is
it “written” of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, “and the three are one.”
Finally, Athanasius (ca. 296-373) who opposed the teachings of Arius denying
the Deity of Christ, speaking of baptism referred to the “Thrice-Blessed Name”
offered at baptism (i.e. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), going on to claim,
“John affirms, ‘and the three are one’” (Disputatio Contra Arium 28.500,
Pope). We must consider, where did John affirm this if not in the Johannine
Comma? It is worth noting that while Tertullian and Cyprian wrote in Latin,
Athenagoras, Origen, and Athanasius wrote in Greek. If these represent
allusions to 1 John 5:7 they show its existence in Greek well before the time
the manuscripts we have today were copied.
When it comes to
Latin evidence, opponents to inclusion note its absence from the oldest Vulgate
manuscript, Codex Fuldensis (ca. 541-46). There is a puzzling irony when it
comes to this manuscript. The Vulgate was an official Latin version produced
under the scholarly work of Jerome between 380-400 A.D. It was intended to
correct flaws that had crept into Latin translations prior to his time. Jerome
consulted Greek manuscripts to compare readings, and wrote prologues attached
to many Vulgate manuscripts that explain his work. In the prologue attached to
Fuldensis, when speaking about such errors, Jerome claims:
...In
that place where we read what is put down about the oneness of the Trinity in
the First Epistle of John...we find there is much error from true faith by
unfaithful translators, putting down in their own edition only three words,
that is, ‘water, blood, and Spirit,’ and omitting the witness of the ‘Father
and Word and Spirit’...” (Prologue to the Canonical Epistles, Pope).
Jerome claims here that “unfaithful
translators” omitted the Johannine Comma. Ironically, while Codex
Fuldensis preserves Jerome’s prologue it omits 1 John 5:7! Critics used to
argue that this prologue was not written by Jerome, but its presence in a
manuscript as early as Fuldensis has challenged that argument. If it is
genuine, Jerome claims that some were omitting the passage in his day. Of the
few remnants of pre-Vulgate old Latin that have survived even opponents of
inclusion acknowledge its presence in Codex Speculum (ca. 400), Codex
Legionensis (ca. 650), and Codex Monacensis (ca. 650). Defenders of inclusion
argue that this supports Jerome’s claim that the passage existed well before
the Vulgate was produced.
A final problem,
if this text was not original is grammatical in nature. Unlike English, in
ancient Greek many words had the grammatical genders of masculine, feminine, or
neuter. In languages that assign gender to words, pronouns, adjectives,
participles, definite articles, and sometimes even numbers must agree with
nouns they modify in gender. Just as we would not say, “She is a good man,”
confusion of grammatical gender would have been considered, coarse, awkward,
and improper to the ancient reader. In this passage the word translated “three”
is the Greek word treis (τρεῖς), the
masculine form of the word meaning “three.” The problem is, if this passage was
not in the original text as John wrote it the use of this masculine form
creates an awkward gender confusion that is difficult to explain. Each of the
words that follow it—Spirit, water, and blood are neuter in
gender. So, we would not expect a masculine numeral to start this list, but
instead the neuter form tria (τρία). If it was
original, the words Father and Word are masculine, so we would
expect such a list to start with a masculine form. Is this a clue that the text
was omitted by some unscrupulous editor who forgot to eliminate this gender
confusion? Some would argue, yes!
If they are correct, then at some point very early in its history the Johannine
Comma was omitted from many Greek manuscripts (whether by accident or
deliberate alteration) and preserved for the most part only in Latin
translation.