REFLECTIONS
by Al Maxey
 

Issue #379 ------- December 22, 2008
**************************
We seek the truth, and we
will endure the consequences.
Charles Seymour {1885-1963}
 

**************************
The Comma Johanneum
Telling Tale of a Trinitarian Text

Dr. Charles Seymour (1885-1963), during his thirteen year tenure as president of Yale University, once observed, "We seek the truth, and we will endure the consequences." This is one of those "uncomfortable realities" associated with truth-seeking. When one initiates a quest for greater truth, and greater understanding of known truth, one also, whether knowingly or unknowingly, subjects himself to the caustic calumnies of those who are quite comfortable in the thought that they, and they alone, have already fully arrived with respect to the sum total of universal objective truth. One dares to challenge the status quo, and its defenders, at one's own peril, as many have painfully learned throughout history. Thus, those who seek truth must be willing to pay the price and suffer the consequences of such a journey of discovery. From a far more positive perspective, however, the resultant benefits of such an inquiry are well worth the effort and attendant affliction.

One of the many areas in which it's often personally dangerous to engage in a process of intense examination for the purpose of determining truth is with respect to the accuracy of various passages within various versions of the Bible. Textual Criticism is a fascinating field of inquiry, but it has also generated its share of controversy, especially from those rigid religionists and factionists within Christendom who do not take kindly to any challenge of their accepted perceptions and positions. To doubt them is to doubt God Himself; differ with them and you have thereby forever declared yourself "in league with the devil and his demons." They themselves have become the "Standard of Measure" for all Christians upon the face of the earth; their views are the only correct views; their practices the only ones approved by God. They are the only ones going to heaven. All others are "fodder for the fire." Somewhat interestingly, a significant number of these people have embraced the King James Version as THE sole authoritative Bible for the world today. Some virtually regard it as "inspired of God" [Reflections #88 -- The Bible Used By Paul: Analysis of the King James Version]. All other versions are compared to and contrasted with it, and are then found either somewhat worthy (such as the ASV) or utterly wanting (such as the NIV). If a passage that is found in the KJV is removed from the "modern versions," then this is viewed as some kind of "Satanic conspiracy" to undermine God's Word. All of which leads us to the infamous Comma Johanneum.

This Latin phrase refers to a short clause (comma) within the writings of the apostle John, specifically the additional wording found in the KJV's rendering of 1 John 5:7-8, a passage often used in support of the doctrine of the Trinity. The following is the reading from the KJV (with the "Comma Johanneum" in bold type) -- "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." This Comma is also found in the New King James Version. Almost all other versions of the Scriptures, however, omit the Comma, which has led some to charge those who produced these newer versions with denying deity, and specifically: denying the doctrine of the Trinity. Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, states: "This passage is an explicit reference to the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and for this reason some Christians are resistant to the elimination of the Comma from modern biblical translations." Albert Barnes, in his classic Notes on the Bible, observes, "The clear testimony which the Comma seems to bear to the doctrine of the Trinity has made that portion of the Christian church which holds the doctrine reluctant in the highest degree to abandon it" [from e-Sword].

Nevertheless, there are a great many extremely serious problems associated with this passage, and this has led scholars searching for greater truth and accuracy to challenge the place of this passage within the inspired New Covenant writings. Which in turn has raised a raucous outcry from those who are staunch supporters of the passage (and more particularly of the KJV within which it is found). The late Adam Clarke (1760-1832) commented, "The seventh verse of the fifth chapter of 1 John has given rise to more theological disputes than any other portion of the sacred writings. Advocates and antagonists have arisen in every quarter of the civilized world" [Clarke's Commentary, vol. 6, p. 927]. In a thoroughly fascinating book titled "The King James Only Controversy" by James B. White (with a Foreword by Dr. Norman Geisler), the author writes, "Most KJV Only preachers and believers make the acceptance of this particular passage the test of 'orthodoxy.' If your Bible does not have this passage, you are in deep trouble" [p. 60]. Apparently, most believers are in "deep trouble," for the vast majority of Bibles today do NOT include the Comma Johanneum. Why? Because the evidence that it is spurious is absolutely overwhelming! Indeed, it is almost impossible to find a single reputable biblical scholar in the world today who will endorse this passage as authentic. The evidence against it is that compelling!

The imminent Greek scholar/author Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, in his work "The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8," stated the following: "This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence -- both external and internal -- is decidedly against its authenticity." He then proceeds to lay out that evidence in quite some detail. So also does one of the most important Greek scholars of recent times, Dr. B. F. Westcott, who, in his scholarly commentary "The Epistles of St. John -- The Greek Text with Notes," devoted eight pages to the evidence refuting the authenticity of this passage [pp. 202-209]. Yet another very highly respected Greek scholar, Dr. Kenneth S. Wuest, in his "Word Studies from the Greek New Testament," declared, "There is general agreement among textual critics that the contents of this verse are spurious, and do not belong to the original text" [vol. 2, In These Last Days, p. 176]. Dr. W. Robertson Nicoll, in his monumental, masterful work "The Expositor's Greek Testament," characterized the Comma as "a Latin interpolation, certainly spurious" [vol. 5, p. 195]. The Expositor's Bible Commentary calls it "a late gloss with no merit" [vol. 12, p. 353]. Interestingly, The Pulpit Commentary refuses to even regard the addition as even being worthy of comment, saying, "It will be assumed here, without discussion, that the remainder of this verse and the first clause of verse 8 are spurious" [vol. 22, p. 140]. World-renowned Greek scholar Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, within the pages of his fabulous work "A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament," informed his readers -- "That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain" [p. 715]. R. C. H. Lenski, in his Commentary on the Epistles of John, declared the Comma "completely spurious," and then said, "The R.V. is right in not even noting in the margin the interpolation found in the A.V." [p. 528].

The Greek scholar, Dr. A. T. Robertson, in his highly regarded work "Word Pictures in the Greek New Testament," was extremely blunt in his statement of disgust for this Comma. He declared that it found its way into the text "by the stupidity of Erasmus" [from e-Sword]. Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536), the great Dutch humanist and theologian, did indeed play a rather significant role in the ultimate inclusion of this passage in the King James Version, although that version would not be published until almost a century after his death. This raises some interesting questions with regard to just how this particular passage found its way into the text of John's first epistle. What exactly led to its inclusion? It is a fascinating journey about which entire books have been written. Obviously we cannot go into that amount of depth in this current article, but let me take just a bit of your time to trace the major points in this historical saga. I think you'll find it enlightening.

First of all, it should be noted that "there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek manuscript until the 1500s" [Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8]. It is, simply stated -- utterly absent from all the early Greek manuscripts of the NT. Dr. Albert Barnes states the obvious: "It is incredible that a genuine passage of the New Testament should be missing in all the early Greek manuscripts" [Barnes' Notes, from e-Sword]. Incredible indeed! Furthermore, "the passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known about it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies" [Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 716]. During the era of these Church Fathers there were a number of genuinely significant controversies involving, among other things, the doctrine of the Trinity -- the Sabellian and Arian "heresies," for example, just to name a couple. And yet, not one single Church Father ever appealed to this passage in order to validate his refutation of these teachings, something these men most assuredly would have done had they been aware of such a passage. It was also unknown among the early Latin Church Fathers as well. This passage is also absent from the manuscripts of all the ancient versions of the New Testament (including the Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic and Slavonic). It did find its way into some Latin texts, but not in the Old Latin text or in the Vulgate as originally issued by Jerome (or even in the revision of Alcuin).

• "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 (chapter 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 the three witnesses: spirit, water and blood), an interpretation which may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text" [Metzger, p. 716].

It should be noted that the above was not an actual NT manuscript, but rather a document produced by a man who simply quoted the passage in question in John's first epistle. No mention was made within that document as to the source of this addition to the passage, however most scholars feel, as was noted by Dr. Metzger, that some scribe, while studying his copy of the manuscript, may have made a note in the margin that the wording of John's text (spirit, water and blood) might lend itself well to a Trinitarian interpretation and application (Father, Son and Spirit). As has happened many times before, such marginal notations have found their way into subsequent copies of the NT text through carelessness of copyists (and, at times, by the willful design of a copyist with a point to prove). Some proponents of the Comma additionally claim that Cyprian "actually quoted the form that appears in the KJV" [Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, The Comma Johanneum and Cyprian]. Cyprian, the Bishop of Carthage in North Africa, and one of the more important Christian writers of his time, died a martyr's death in Carthage on September 14, 258 A.D. If the claim is true that he quoted the Comma in the same form as appears in the KJV, then this would be important, as it would place the passage within a century and a half of the time when it was originally written by the apostle John. Unfortunately for the defenders of the Comma Johanneum, however, Cyprian does not quote the passage in question, but merely comments upon the three witnesses mentioned by John (spirit, water, blood) in language similar to the Comma. Cyprian, clearly, was not quoting the Comma as though it were a part of the text, but providing his own insight into the text and perceiving how it could be given a Trinitarian interpretation, a fact which Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, as well as a good many other writers, makes abundantly clear in his exegesis of Cyprian's comments. "Thus, that Cyprian interpreted 1 John 5:7-8 to refer to the Trinity is likely; but that he saw the Trinitarian formula in the text is rather unlikely" [Dr. Wallace]. The online encyclopedia Wikipedia, citing this very same study, states, "Wallace is following the current standard critical editions of the New Testament which consider Cyprian a witness against the Comma." In other words, most scholars today feel that Cyprian actually serves as proof that the Comma is NOT legitimate, rather than proof that it IS.

• Even if we allow that Cyprian did actually QUOTE the Comma (which he didn't), rather than just comment in similar language upon the three witnesses, this still leaves some huge questions and doubts. These are expressed well by Adam Clarke --- "I seriously ask every impartial judge whether a passage found in no ancient Greek manuscript, quoted by no Greek father, and contained in no other ancient version than the Latin (and not in all copies of this), is therefore to be pronounced genuine merely because one Latin father of the three first centuries, who was bishop of Carthage, where the Latin version only was used, and where Greek was unknown, has quoted it? Under these circumstances, should we conclude that the passage stood originally in the Greek autograph of Saint John? Certainly not!" [Clarke's Commentary, vol. 6, p. 931]. I think you will find most biblical scholars agree.

Somewhere around the year 800 A.D., the spurious Comma, as it appeared in chapter four of the fourth century homily mentioned above [Liber Apologeticus], was worked into a few later copies of the Vulgate (although it never appeared in Jerome's original Vulgate). This passage, taken from these later Latin copies, was then "back-translated" into Greek at a later date, thus generating a very small number of Greek manuscripts with the Comma added, most appearing in the margin. "Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek manuscript until the 1500s; each such reading was apparently composed after Erasmus' Greek New Testament was published in 1516" [Dr. Daniel Wallace]. In the first two editions of Erasmus' Greek New Testament -- the first edition appearing in 1516 and the second in 1519 -- he did NOT include the Comma. This brought about a flurry of criticism from those churchmen who had embraced the Comma from the recent Latin versions, and who had been making use of the Comma in support of the doctrine of the Trinity, which had become a major doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. For example, Edward Lee and Diego Lopez Zuniga launched a number of vicious attacks against Erasmus for daring to leave this passage out of his first two editions of the Greek NT. They accused him of promoting the heresy of Arianism. In response, Erasmus challenged them to "produce a Greek manuscript that has what is missing in my edition."

Shortly thereafter just such a Greek manuscript suddenly and miraculously appeared from out of nowhere!! It is known today as the Codex Montfortianus [aka: "Dubliniensis," aka: "Britannicus"], and is currently housed at Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland. Almost nobody, including Erasmus, regarded the work as legitimate, but he was true to his word, and since a Greek manuscript was produced that contained the Comma, he included it in his third edition which was published in 1522. This third edition, unfortunately, would go on to become the primary Greek basis for the later King James Version, "thereby fixing the Comma firmly in the English language Scriptures for centuries" [Wikipedia]. The great tragedy in all of this, of course, is that the passage is based upon a forgery!! The codex that miraculously appeared was nothing but a fraud, prepared solely for the purpose of forcing Erasmus to alter his third edition to favor the doctrine of the Trinity. It is for this reason that the noted Greek scholar Dr. A. T. Robertson so boldly declared that the Comma found its way into the text "by the stupidity of Erasmus" [from e-Sword]. Dr. Charles Ellicott, in his commentary on the passage, wrote that we owe the Comma "solely to the reluctant deference paid by Erasmus to unlearned current opinion. There is hardly a passage in all literature more demonstrably spurious!" [vol. 8, p. 472]. "In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: he did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold" [Dr. Daniel Wallace].

This article is reproduced here with written permission from Al Maxey, the author.

List of Articles about the Trinity     Bible Study with Harley