- A Case For the Authenticity of 1st John 5:7-8
-
Rooted in Biblical Exegesis
“And These Three Are One”
~PART ONE (2)~
BY
JESSE M. BOYD
WAKE FOREST,
NORTH CAROLINA
22 APRIL 1999
This exegesis is dedicated first and foremost to
my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ who revealed Himself to me in the written
word--perfectly preserved down through the ages and given to me in a
language I can understand. Recognizing that, as Martin Luther once
said, "The Bible is like a lion; it does not need to be defended; just let
it loose and it will defend itself," I hereby construct this defense out of
genuine gratefulness for the infallible Word of God as contained in the
Authorized King James Bible. Without a perfectly preserved Written
Word, I would know nothing of a personal relationship with the Living Word.
Last, but not least, I dedicate this exegesis
to my seminary professor, Dr. David Black, whose books have had a profound
effect on my acquisition of a working knowledge of the Greek language. No biblical scholar that I have had contact with has exhibited such humility
and self-sacrificing devotion toward his students. The reasons for
differing with Dr. Black in opinion with regard to the authenticity of I
John 5:7-8 are to be laid out in this paper. Despite disagreement,
however, he holds my highest respect as a Man of God. I pray, Dr.
Black, that you would consider my presentation, acknowledging that this
passage does not deserve the hasty dismissal it so often receives.
-Jesse M. Boyd
AND THESE
THREE ARE ONE
The hasty dismissal of this passage in most modern
versions of the Bible is largely due to the fact that it is only found in
eight of the five hundred Greek manuscripts that witness to the fifth
chapter of I John. Consequently, it is almost unanimously regarded
among modern textual critics as a later scribal emendation.
The primary
English translation that contains the Johannine Comma is the
Authorized King James Bible which is based upon the Greek Textus
Receptus. The passage reads:
7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
Most modern
translations (NAS, NIV, RSV, NLT, LB et. al.), on the other hand, are based
upon the Alexandrian text-type tradition (i.e. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus).
These versions commonly read as does the NIV:
7For there are three that testify: 8the spirit, the water, and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
As anyone can
clearly see, there is a substantial omission and consequent mix-up of the
text. The modern versions arrive at such a rendering by completely
removing verse 7, as found in the AV; then, the phrase "in the earth" is
excised and the first phrase of verse 8 (There are three that bear witness)
becomes verse 7.Thus, the entire arrangement and sense of the passage is
altered.
Unfortunately, this altering of the text is often accepted without question. In fact, the issue is rarely, if ever, reasoned through in modern times. Accusations against the passage's authenticity are simply announced as though they were facts. Such conclusions imply that there is no evidence that can be mounted in favor of the Comma's genuineness. This, however, is far from the truth. The purpose of this study is to construct such a case. In doing so, the author will apply ten exegetical tools to the text of I John 5:7-8, gearing them toward the issue of authenticity.
The overall purpose of such exegesis is not to prove genuineness although the author would concede to such a conclusion. Rather, the evidence will show that a case for authenticity deserves a hearing as much, if not more than a case for spuriousness. The issue, in other words, is not settled as most critical commentators would assert; there are no foregone conclusions.
After all, the burden of proof lies
with the accuser whose responsibility it is to prove that the text is an
emendation. The exegesis that follows will at the very least cast a
shadow of doubt on the accusation itself therefore precluding its ability to
be proven.[1] May
God Almighty guide this quest which seeks, above all, to magnify and
establish his perfectly preserved Word.
Historical Analysis
The well-known Greek scholar, A.T. Robertson, once wrote, "in the whole of the First Epistle [I John] there is hardly a single thought that is not found in the Gospel [John]."[2]This coherence has been considered even more evident than that which exists between Luke and Acts.
Such a fact has led some to believe that I
John served as preface or dedicatory epistle to the Gospel of John, for
both Books are characterized by repetition, contrast, parallelism,
personal elements, profound spirituality, and doctrine.[3]Historically
speaking, it is very possible that the Gospel of John was attached to the
epistle as it was sent out to the addressees. I John was to be read
as an introduction or commentary on the teachings of the Gospel. John Ebrard writes:
It [I John] bears the stamp of a preface or dedicatory epistle. The Apostle addresses himself to specific readers, and holds communion, person to person, with them, in that we mark the essence of the epistle; but he does this on occasion of another communication, to which this is attached, and to which it refers; and therefore, in its form, it is no epistle, no simple and direct substitute of oral speech, but an address uttered on occasion of the reading of another and different communication.[4]
The exhortations
contained in I John were uttered by the Apostle on occasion of the contents
contained in the Gospel. Having understood the principles of
Christians fellowship promulgated in the Epistle, the reader could proceed
to understand the entire basis of his fellowship, the life and work of Jesus
Christ as promulgated in the Gospel.
Regarding the issue
at hand, such a distinct literary/historical coherence fully supports the
inclusion of the Johannine Comma. The resounding theme of the
Gospel of John is the divinity of Jesus Christ. Such is summed up in
John 10:30, when Jesus says, "I and my Father are one." This same
theme is prevalent in the Epistle, being concisely and clearly stated in
5:7-8.The Comma truly bears coherence with the message of John's
Gospel in this sense. It serves as an occasion to introduce the
doctrine of the Trinity as the original readers prepared to study the
attached Gospel. Although Christ's divinity is inferred throughout the
epistle, one is not confronted with such succinct declaration as is conveyed
in the Comma. If this passage is omitted, it seems that the theme of
John's Gospel would lack a proper introduction.
It is interesting to
note that one of the earliest allusions to the Johannine Comma in
church history is promulgated in connection to the thematic statement made
by the Lord in John 10:30.[5] Cyprian
writes around A.D. 250, "The Lord says 'I and the Father are one' and
likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 'And
these three are one.'"[6] The
theological teaching of the Comma most definitely bears coherence
with the overriding theme of John's Gospel. There is no reason to
believe that the verse is not genuine in this sense, for it serves as a
proper prelude to the theme of the Gospel which, historically speaking, most
likely accompanied the Epistle as it was sent out to its original audience.
The heresy of Gnosticism is also of notable importance with regard to the historical context surrounding the Johannine Comma. This "unethical intellectualism" had begun to make inroads among churches in John's day; its influence would continue to grow up until the second century when it gave pure Christianity a giant struggle.[7] Generally speaking, Gnosticism can be described as a variety of syncretic religious movements in the early period of church history that sought to answer the question, "What must I do to be saved?"
The Gnostic answer was that a
person must possess a secret knowledge.[8] One
of the major tenets of Gnosticism was the essential evil of matter; the
physical body, in other words, was viewed as evil. According to this
line of thought, Jesus Christ could not have been fully God and fully man,
for this would have required him to posses an evil physical body.
The seeds of the Gnostic heresy seem to be before John's mind in his first epistle; nine times he gives tests for knowing truth in conjunction with the verb ginwskw (to know).[9] This being said, the Johannine Comma would have constituted an integral component of the case the Apostle made against the false teachings of the Gnostics, especially with regard to the nature of Christ. Robertson notes that John's Gospel was written to prove the deity of Christ, assuming his humanity, while I John was written to prove the humanity of Christ, assuming his deity.[10]
He
goes on to say, "Certainly both ideas appear in both books."[11] If
these notions are true, then the Comma is important to John's
polemic. Jesus Christ, the human Son of God, is the eternal, living
Word (cf. John 1:1).The Word, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit,
bears witness to "he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ"
(I John 5:6).This assertion would have flown right into the face of
Gnosticism.
On the flip side of
the coin, the Gnostics would have completely disregarded the truth
promulgated in the Johannine Comma. In fact, they may have
excised it from the text in the same way that Marcion took a butcher knife
to the New Testament in the second century. Also, the Arian heresy,
which taught that Jesus was not God but a created being, grew out of
Gnosticism. In fact, it was widespread in the Church during the third
and fourth centuries. Not long after the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325),
an ecumenical council that denounced Arianism, "the whole world woke from a
deep slumber and discovered that it had become Arian."[12] Perhaps
the prevalent influences of these heresies were responsible for the text
falling out of many manuscripts and versions of the New Testament. This hypothesis is at least as plausible as competing theories which suppose
that someone added the verses to combat heretical teaching.
Literary Analysis
Apart from it, the triune nature of God is only arrived at after having pieced numerous passages together (e.g. Matthew 28:18 + John 10:30 + John 1:1 + Acts 5:3-4).If a later scribe interpolated the passage to make a case for the Trinity, there are many other places that it could have been inserted so as to disguise its spuriousness. For example, the statement "these three are one" would have made a nice addition to the phrase "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" in Matthew 28:19.
The Johannine Comma also fits the remote context of the entire epistle of I John. This can be seen by focusing upon the book's genre. I John has long been classified as an epistle proper, a letter written to simply edify other believers in the faith. However, it lacks the external form as is characteristic of other New Testament epistles. I John contains no formal greeting or benediction, and the author and readers are not mentioned or specified. Hayes argues, "There is no suggestion of any particular occasion for the writing of I John. It might have been written at almost any time and in almost any place and under almost any conditions. Its contents are suitable for all times and places and conditions of men."[13]
These facts have caused some to cast aside the notion of "epistolary form" in favor of the theological treatise such as is found in the Book of Hebrews. However, this classification also has its problems because I John is not "a production sent forth in the form of a treatise, but a thoroughly epistolary outpouring of thought and feelings."[14]
Perhaps the best classification of I John can be arrived at by blending epistle and treatise. Vedder argues that the affinities of this book are with the Wisdom literature. He writes, "The lack of continuity of thought, so perplexing to those who persist in regarding this as epistolary in literary form, becomes appropriate and even characteristic in a composition of the Wisdom order."[15]
In other words, one sees a collection on brief essays or thought, more or less connected to a general theme - the fellowship of the believer. "A brief prologue states this theme, and an equally brief epilogue sums up what the writer regards as the chief things established by what he has written."[16]
One, however, cannot completely dismiss the epistolary connotation. I John is a letter in which the author expresses a personal relation to a definite class of readers. "The writer is concerned throughout with a given situation. He takes for granted that his readers are acquainted with the persons and events he has in mind, and makes allusions, in almost every paragraph, to which the clue has now been lost."[17]
With
all of this in mind, the word "Epistolary Treatise" can be coined to fit I
John. The Book contains numerous brief discourses dealing with a
wide range of subjects. At the same time, however, while the Apostle
chooses not to use the set epistolary forms, he approaches the readers as
a community, briefly addressing them in the prologue (1:1-4) as well as
the epilogue (5:21).Furthermore, the theological discussions contained
therein are laced with personal emotion and feeling which is common in New
Testament epistles.
How does the genre
of I John relate to the Comma? If the book is properly
recognized as an "Epistolary Treatise," then the theological teaching
contained in 5:7-8 fits the structure of the epistle neatly. Such a
statement, in fact, would be expected. The Epistle of I John can be
broken down in the following manner:
I. Prologue (1:1-4)
II. Our Advocate (1:8-2:2)
III. Obedience (2:3-6)
IV. Purpose (2:12-14)
V. Love of the World (2:15-17)
VI. Antichrist (2:18-28)
VII. Character of God's Children (2:29-3:12)
IX. Love (3:13-24)
X. Test of the Spirit (3:24-4:6)
XI. God is Love (4:7-21)
XII. Victory of Faith (5:1-5)
XIII. Three Witnesses (5:6-13)
XIV. Prayer (5:14-17)
XV. Epilogue[18]
Each aforementioned
section, excluding the prologue and epilogue, constitutes a brief discourse
on a different theological topic. While no particular order is
apparent, each discourse serves to heighten the readers understanding of
Christian fellowship, the overriding theme of I John.
The Comma is found in the midst of a brief discourse dealing with three witnesses. This discourse contributes to the overall theme of the Book by promulgating a consequence of Christian fellowship, the verification of Christ's credentials. The Comma, nicely aligned with the structure of the entire book, shows plainly that Christ is one with the Father and the Spirit as he bears witness in heaven. At the same time, his baptism, crucifixion, and the earthly ministry of the Holy Spirit bear witness on earth. It is these witnesses that verify Christ's identity as the Son of God.
In light of these facts, the believer can have fellowship with
God Almighty. If the Comma is omitted from the passage, the
structure breaks down. The theological argument of 5:6-12 becomes
vague and one is left trying to figure out how to apply these verses.
They most definitely do not fall in line with the preceding discourse
(Victory of Faith) or the one that follows (Prayer).
Finally, I John 5:7-8 fits the immediate context; in fact, it is an indispensable component of the surrounding verses. Metzger, in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, argues that "as regards intrinsic probability, the passage [The Johannine Comma] makes an awkward break in the sense."[19]
Upon close examination of the immediate context, however, one finds that this assertion is far from true. For example, if the Comma is omitted, verse 6 and verse 8 are thrown together, "which gives a very bald, awkward, and meaningless repetition of the Spirit's witness twice in immediate succession."[20]
Furthermore, the omission causes the concluding phrase of verse 8 (and these three agree in one) to contain an unintelligible reference.[21]
What is "that one" (to en) to which "these three" are said to agree? In other words, "that one" in verse 8 which designates One to whom the reader has already been introduced does not have antecedent presence in the passage. "Let verse 7 stand, and all is clear, and the three earthly witnesses testify to that aforementioned unity which the Father, Word, and Spirit constitute."[22]
The
passage makes absolutely no sense if the Comma is omitted. The
phrase "in earth" in verse 8 as well as the entire ninth verse would also
have to be knocked out to regain the sense because both infer that the
"witness of God," as promulgated in the Comma, has already been
introduced.
In a slightly broader immediate context, John has asserted in the previous six verses that faith is the bond of the believer's spiritual life and his consequent victory over the world. Such faith must have a solid warrant, and the truth by which it is to be assured is none other than the Sonship and Deity of Jesus Christ (cf. I John 5:5, 11, 12, 20). This warrant is first presented in 5:6, in Jesus' earthly ministry and the witness of the Holy Ghost speaking by way of inspired men. In 5:7, it comes in the words of the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, asserting and confirming by miracles the unity of Christ with God the Father.
Thirdly, the warrant appears in 5:8 through the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with Christ's baptism and crucifixion, all of which verify the atoning work of the Saviour.[23]
Finally,
as promulgated in 5:10, the warrant lies in the spiritual consciousness of
the believer himself, certifying to him his divine charge. "How
harmonious is all thus if we accept the 7th verse as genuine, but if we omit
it, the very keystone of the arch is wanting, and the crowning proof that
the warrant of our faith is divine (5:9) is struck out."[24]
FAITH'S SOLID
WARRANT
In the critical apparatus, as well as Metzger's accompanying commentary, the evidence presented is misleading and deceptive to the average reader.[27]
One is led to believe, as Metzger claims, that the passage is absent from virtually every known Greek manuscript; it is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers; and it is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions.[28]
Though
such assertions may have a ring of truth to them, they are broad
generalizations that result from a biased evaluation of all the evidence.
Perhaps the best approach to constructing a case for the inclusion of the
Johannine Comma involves a point by point refutation of Metzger's
arguments, for they bespeak the opinions of most critical scholars. As noted, the purpose of this study is not to prove the authenticity of
the Comma, such a conclusion can only be accepted by faith in the
preserved Word of God. Nonetheless, the external evidence in favor
of the passage is far greater than modern critics would have us to believe
by their tales of the "stupidity of Erasmus."[29]
The first claim that Metzger makes is that the Comma "is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight . . . the eight manuscripts are as follows . . ."[30]
Next,
he proceeds to list the manuscripts, but only catalogues seven (61, 88, 221,
429, 636, 918, 2318).Where is the eighth manuscript? The critical
apparatus of the UBS4 adds Codex Ottobonianus (629) which dates
to the fourteenth century, but Metzger fails to mention it. One is
forced to wonder about this initial contradiction. Four of these eight
manuscripts contain the Comma written in the margin (88, 221, 429,
636), while the other four include it as part of the text.[31]
It is interesting to note that both Metzger and the UBS editors fail to list the Codex Britannicus as evidence for the Comma.[32]
Their reason for doing this is probably the same reason that all modern textual critics ignore the codex--they equate it with Codex Monfortianus (61).The so-called "evidence" for this miscalculation centers around Erasmus, the man whose Novum Testamentum Graecum was utilized by the AV translators. The well-known anecdote says that Erasmus was criticized for omitting the Comma from his first and second editions. He argued that no Greek manuscripts contained the reading and supposedly challenged his critic, Edward Lee who charged him with being an Arian for omitting I John 5:7-8,to produce a manuscript with the passage. Only then, would he include it in his edition.[33]
Codex Monfort is supposedly the manuscript that was hastily drawn up to meet Erasmus' demands; the ink was supposedly still wet when Erasmus received it. Nevertheless he is said to have inserted the verse, defending his actions by stating that he had received a transcript of the Comma from Codex Britannicus (what is believed to be the Codex Monfort).[34]
First of all, the argument that Erasmus challenged Lee is completely
unsound. A careful perusal of Erasmus' words in his Liber tertius
quod respondet . . . Ed. Lei yields evidence to the contrary:
Is it negligence and impiety, if I did not consult manuscripts which were simply not within my reach? I have at least assembled whatever I could assemble. Let Lee produce a Greek MS. which contains what my edition does not contain and let him show that that manuscript was within my reach. Only then can he reproach me with negligence in sacred matters.[35]
Erasmus does not challenge Lee to produce a manuscript. Rather, he simply argues that Lee can legitimately reproach him with negligence if and only if he can demonstrate that manuscripts could have consulted containing I John 5:7-8.As Henk J. de Jonge states, "Erasmus does not at all ask for a MS containing the Comma Johanneum. He denies Lee the right to call him negligent and impious if the latter does not prove that Erasmus neglected a manuscript to which he had access."[36]
In light of these facts, there never was a manuscript produced to convince Erasmus. If there had been, Erasmus would have surely been smart enough to detect such a forgery.
Although Codex Monfortanius is dated by modern critics to the sixteenth century (ca. 1520), one must wonder where the reading of I John 5:7-8 came from. It did not come from Ximene's Polygot, for it was not published until 1522.[37]
It did not come from Erasmus because it does not match his Greek in scores of places.[38]
Rather, the literal affinities of Monfortanius are with the Syriac Version which was not known in Europe until after 1552.[39]
Besides,
this codex has been dated by Adam Clarke to the thirteenth century.[40]
As far as Codex Britannicus is concerned, it
cannot be equated with the Monfort, because the respective renderings of I
John 5:7-8 are quite different.On the one hand, the Monfort omits the
articles in verse seven (o,
o, to) and
transposes "agion
pneuma."In
verse 8, the articles (to,
to, to), a
conjunction (kai),
and the last phrase (kai
oi treiV eiV to en eisin)
are missing.Britannicus, on the other hand, includes the articles and the
final phrase but omits the adjective "agion"
in verse 8.Where did Erasmus acquire the last clause for his third
edition?He surely did not get it from the Compultensian Polygot or Codex
Monfort, but from Britannicus. This is why Monfortanius "cannot
possibly be the same with the Codex Britannicus."[41]At
this point, no date as been assigned to this manuscript.
Metzger's
presentation of evidence from the Early Church Fathers is misleading.
After promulgating
his faulty catalogue of Greek manuscripts containing the Comma,
Metzger claims that "the passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers."
Such a bold assertion is also misleading because Gregory of Nazanzius (a
Greek Church Father from the fourth century), although not directly quoting
the passage, specifically alludes to the passage and objects to the
grammatical structure if the Comma is omitted (Metzger, on the other
hand, would have one to believe that the Greek Church Fathers knew nothing
of the passage). Gregory writes:
What about John then, when in his Catholic Epistle he says that there are Three that bear witness, the Spirit and the Water and the Blood? Do you think he is talking nonsense? First, because he has ventured to reckon under one numeral things which are not consubstantial, though you say this ought to be done only in the case of things which are consubstantial. For who would assert that these are consubstantial? Secondly, because he had not been consistent in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourself disclaim in the case of Deity?[42]
In this brief
excursus, Gregory objects to the use of a masculine plural participle with
three neuter nouns ( [7] m:pl = [8] n+n+n ) which, of course, is the case if
the Comma is omitted. In other words, "Gregory of Nazianzus
objected to the omission of 1 John v.7f."[43]
Metzger's
presentation of evidence with regard to the Trinitarian Controversies is
misleading.
Metzger goes on to claim that if any of the Greek Fathers had known of the Comma, they would have "most certainly employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian)."[44]
There
is some truth to this statement in that Metzger is referring to specific
controversies that had taken place by A.D. 323 (e.g. Council of Nicea).
There is no extant written evidence that the Comma was ever cited in
these major Trinitarian controversies, but an argument from silence proves
nothing. Nonetheless, Metzger completely ignores the fact that the
verse was employed at the Council of Carthage in A.D. 485;by doing so, he
would have us to believe that I John 5:7-8 was never used as proof of the
Trinity and/or deity of Christ in the numerous debates that arose and
plagued the Church concerning these issues. Prior to this council, a
conflict had arisen between the Arians (led byKing Huneric the Vandal) and a
group of bishops from North Africa. An assembly was called at Carthage
where I John 5:7-8 was insisted upon by Eugenius, the spokesman for the
African bishops, as he confessed his faith and the faith of his brethren:
.
. .and in order that we may teach until now, more clearly than light, that
the Holy Spirit is now one divinity with the Father and the Son.It is proved
by the evangelist John, for he says, 'there are three which bear testimony
in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are
one.[45]
In spite of this
example, those that oppose the verse remark that the unanimous testimony of
the 400 bishops in no way proves that the Comma was in all of their
copies. Secondly, they assert that as no dispute took place, but the
conference was broken up immediately; therefore, the Arians did not accept
the passage. Charles Butler, in Horae Biblicae, offered an
interesting 12-point rebuttal to the opposers of the Comma.
Such is a lengthy treatise and will not be employed word for word but
adequately summarized.
Charles Butler pointed out that the Catholic Bishops were summoned to a conference where they most certainly expected the tenets of their faith to be attacked by the Arians (the Arians denied the deity of Jesus Christ). Therefore, they would have been very careful about what they included in their proposed confession, seeing as all power was in the hands of their angry Arian adversaries.
The bishops included the Johannine Comma as a first line of defense for their confession of Christ's deity. If the Arians could have argued what present-day opposers of the verse say (The Comma was is no Greek copy and in only a few Lain copies), what would the bishops have replied?
If we are to believe that they were unable to hold out one Greek copy, no ancient Latin copy, and no ancient father where the verse could be found, the Arians could have rightly accused them on the spot of following a spurious passage and being guilty of palpable falsehood.
It is almost certain that these bishops would not have exposed themselves to such immediate and indelible infamy. They volunteered to include the Comma in their confession despite the existence of many long treatises that had been written by the ancient defenders of the Trinity in which the verse had not been mentioned. Such treatises would have served as ample evidence, but the bishops cited I John 5:7-8 instead.
Obviously, they had no fear that any claim of spuriousness could be legitimately dashed upon them. If the verse were attacked, the bishops could have produced Greek copies, ancient Latin copies, and ancient fathers in its defense. The Comma, however, was not attacked by the Arians and the Catholic bishops (302 of them) were exiled to different parts of Africa, exposed to the insults of their enemies, and carefully deprived of all temporal and spiritual comforts of life.
It is ludicrous to think that these men could undergo such persecution and suffering for their belief of the deity of Jesus Christ only to insert a spurious verse into God's Word as their first line of defense.[46]
The
African bishops must have had weighty testimony to the Comma in their
manuscripts. As a result, they were able to successfully employ the
passage as they defended their faith before the Arian accusers.
Metzger's
presentation of evidence from ancient versions is misleading.
Metzger follows up with yet another misleading claim in his textual commentary. He claims that "the passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethioptic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin . . ."[47]
This
allegation is misleading because, as Scrivener asserts, "scarcely any
Armenian codex exhibits it, and only a few recent Slavonic copies, the
margin of a Moscow edition of 1663 being the first to represent it."[48]F.
H. A. Scrivener opposes the inclusion of the verse, and in that aspect,
agrees with Metzger. However, he does admit that it appears in a few
copies of the Armenian and Slavonic, both being ancient version.
Metzger's blanket statement overlooks this fact.
As far as the Old Syriac is concerned, there is good evidence that the Comma appeared in its early manuscripts. First of all, it must be noted that when Metzger or the UBS editors refer to the Old Syriac, they are simply alluding to a collation of "five printed editions [sys(1910), syc(1904), syp(1920), syh(1909), syr(1788)(1803)(1889)], each of which is based on one or two MSS, or a slender portion of all extant Syriac MSS."[49]
Just because I John 5:7-8 does not appear in any of these five editions does not mean that it was not present in any Syriac copies. In fact, the evidence yields quite the contrary. For example, Jaqub of Edessa, a well-known church writer from the seventh century who wrote in Syriac, inscribed, "The soul and the body and the mind which are sanctified through three holy things; through water and blood and Spirit, and through the Father and the Son and the Spirit."[50]
Here,
Jaqub is clearly making reference to the three earthly witnesses in
conjunction with the three heavenly witnesses as promulgated in I John 5:7-8
with the Comma inserted. It must have been in some Syriac
copies of his day in order for him to be able to make a legitimate allusion
to it.
Tremellius' Grammatica Chaldea Et Syra (1569) is also of notable importance with regard to Metzger's blanket generalization of the Syriac version. Tremellius translated the Comma from Greek into Syriac and placed it in the margin of his codex, as most modern accounts boldly announce, but he left a blank space in the text where the passage should appear.[51]
Modern
scholars such as Scrivener and Metzger do not mention this. If Tremellius was so sure about the spuriousness of the verse, why did he take
the time to translate it? Better yet, why did he place it in the
margin, hesitate to disturb the verse numbering, and leave a blank space for
it? Tremellius must have been aware of its presence in the Syriac
tradition. He himself wrote:
But because it was omitted not only in the printed version, but only in the
manuscript Heidelberg codex, nor was read in all the old Greek codices, I
did not dare to insert it into the text.So in order that there might not be
a disturbance of the verses, and so that their numbers may correspond to the
numbers on the verses of the Greek text, I have passed from the sixth to the
eighth verse.[52]
As Maynard correctly
concludes:
How often is a blank space provided for 1 John v.7f in an English translation today, let alone a Greek edition? The four questions together could indicate that Tremellius must have had doubts. His actions are not in accord with his words. Perhaps, with a blank space, he wanted not only to retain the correspondence with numbers but to ensure that a future Syriac editor would not overlook this spot. (Modern editors do not hesitate over a 'disturbance of the verses.' They merely split verse six in half.)[53]
Another Syriac edition worthy of consideration is Gutbier's Lexicon Syricum concerdatntiale omnes N.T. Syriaci which appeared in 1664.This version contains the Comma as well as Acts 8:37, another non-majority reading from the Textus Receptus that is commonly omitted by modern scholars. Also, of notable importance, is the fact that the Old Syriac has Textus Receptus readings for Matthew 6:13; Luke 2:33; 23:42; and John 9:35, against the UBS4.[54]
It is very possible that the Syriac also agreed with the Textus Receptus on its rendering of I John 5:7-8 as well. After all, as Maynard shows, several indexes include numerous Syriac manuscripts as containing the fifth chapter of I John, some even dating back to the sixth century. Unfortunately, these have been neglected, and it remains unknown as to whether or not they contain the Comma.[55]
Therefore,
Metzger cannot legitimately claim that the passage is not found in the Old
Syriac version, especially since he has obviously not evaluated all the
evidence. Jaqub of Edessa, Tremellius, and Gutbier had to get the
Comma from somewhere.
Metzger's
presentation of the evidence from the Old Latin Version is misleading.
Metzger also says
that the Comma does not appear in the Old Latin in its earliest form
(Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine). This too, is a deceptive statement,
for both Tertullian (ca. 200 AD) and Cyprian (ca. 250) cite or make an
allusion to the passage. If they did not have it in their Latin
manuscripts, where did they get it from? Tertullian is not cited as a
witness to the Comma in the critical apparatus of the UBS4.However,
less than a century after the death of John the Apostle (possibly as early
as A.D. 200), Tertullian wrote:
.
. .which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the
three Persons--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three
however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not
in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of
one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and
aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost.[56]
This is a clear reference to the teaching found in the Comma. On another occasion, Tertullian, according to John Gill, quotes the passage in question.[57]
Athanasius (ca. 350) is likewise not mentioned in the UBS' critical apparatus. However, according to R.E. Brown, Athanasius quotes the passage at least three times in his works.[58]
Around A.D. 250, Cyprian, as noted, wrote, "The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one, and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'"[59]
Cyprian,
less than two hundred years after the writing of I John, is expressly
quoting the Johannine Comma. He must have got it from an early
form of the Old Latin in spite of Metzger's claims. It is interesting
that even he admits that "Our information concerning the Old Latin
translation of the New Testament is very defective . . ."[60]
The Old Latin translations of the New Testament are very important in establishing the authenticity of I John 5:7-8, for Latin was the major language up through the Middle Ages. The Old Latin is not the same as the Latin of Jerome's Vulgate, which by the way, does include the Comma. The Old Latin predates the Vulgate text and is found well into the Middle Ages. Did the Old Latin consistently contain the Johannine Comma? For the answer to this question, one must turn to the Tepl Codex, a fourteenth century manuscript written in Middle High German. This Codex is significant because "the Tepl Codex actually predates a pre-Jerome text from a non-Vulgate MS, w."[61]
Metzger acknowledges that w contains "Old Latin readings in Acts and the Catholic Epistles."[62]
It comes as no surprise that the Tepl contains the Comma exactly as it is found in the Textus Receptus. As Maynard argues, its text "has a remarkable longevity into the 15th century. This indicates that German MSS ought not to be dismissed as mere copies of Latin Vulgate MSS."[63]
According to Elliot, the Tepl comes from the Old Latin and has its affinity with w (an Old Latin manuscript from the 15th century).[64]
Latin manuscript w is dated to the 15th century while the Tepl is dated to the 14th.Had this been reversed, the German Tepl would be regarded with much less value. But, as it is, this Codex actually predates a pre-Jerome Latin text (w). The Tepl and the Old Lain manuscripts together "provide pre-Reformation support for non-majority readings of the Authorized Version."[65]
The
Tepl not only contains I John 5:7-8 as it is found in the Textus Receptus,
but Acts 8:37; 9:5-6; and 15:34, all of which are omitted in modern English
versions.
The Old Latin from which the Tepl descended is also found in the manuscripts of the Waldensians. History teaches that the Waldensians were those Christians who lived in the Vaudois valley in northern Italy. The Waldensian Church has been dated back to about A.D. 120.Their Old Itala Bible was translated in the early second century. The Waldensians were severely persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church between the fourth and thirteenth centuries.
As Jack Moorman argues, "Research into the text and history of the Waldensian Bible has shown that it is a literal descendant of the Old Itala. In other words, the Itala has come down to us in Waldensian form, and firmly supports the Traditional Text."[66]
Gail
Riplinger, goes on to promulgate, "It [the Waldensian Bible] was a
translation of the true text into the rather rude Low Latin of the second
century . . . the Bible of the Waldensians was used to carry the true text
throughout Europe."[67]
The translators of the AV 1611 King James Bible did not simply include the Comma because it was in Erasmus' edition of the Greek New Testament; they had four Bibles on their tables that had come under heavy Waldensian influence.[68]
All four contained the Johannine Comma as contained in the Textus Receptus. The first of these was the Geneva Bible which was translated in 1557 at Geneva, the center of the Swiss Reformation. The basis for the Geneva Bible was the French Olivetan which was translated by Olivetan, a Waldensian pastor and relative of John Calvin. This fact illustrates "how readily the two streams of descent of the Received Text, through the Greek East and the Waldensian West, ran together."[69]
Secondly,
the AV translators utilized the Greek text of Theodore Beza, Calvin's
successor at Geneva. With Calvin's help, Beza brought out a later
edition of the Textus Receptus. Wilkinson argues:
This later edition of the Received Text is in reality a Greek New Testament brought out under Waldensian influence. Unquestionably, the leaders of the Reformation -- German, French, and English--were convinced that the Received Text was the genuine New Testament, not only by its own irresistible history and internal evidence, but also because it matched with the Received Text which in Waldensian form came down from the days of the apostles [emphasis mine].[70]
The third Bible influenced by the Waldensians and utilized by the AV translators was the Italian Diodati. Diodati, an Italian, succeeded Beza in the chair of Theology at Geneva and translated the received text into Italian. "This version was adopted by the Waldenses, although there was in use at that time a Waldensian Bible in their own peculiar language."[71]
The fourth Bible of interest is the German Tepl which, as previously mentioned, was a translation of a pre-Jerome Latin text into German. "This Tepl manuscript represented a translation of the Waldensian Bible into the German which was spoken before the days of the Reformation."[72]
In addition to these four Bibles, there is reason to believe that the King James translators had access to at least six Waldensian Bibles written in the old Waldensian vernacular, all of which contained the disputed passage.[73]
In relation to the Old Latin, Waldensians, and the Johannine Comma, it is only appropriate to summarize a rather lengthy discourse byFrederick Nolan. In Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, he argues that the Old Latin derived its name from the Italick Church (distinguished from Roman Catholic). The principal copies of this version have been preserved in that diocese, the metropolitan church of which was situated at Milan. Remains of the primitive Old Latin version can be found in the early translations made by the Waldensians, who were the lineal descendants of the Italick church. They asserted their independence against the usurpations of the Church of Rome, and consequently, enjoyed the free use of the Scriptures.
All of this provided Nolan "with abundant proof on that point to which his inquiry was chiefly directed; as it has supplied him with the unequivocal testimony of a truly Apostolical branch of the primitive church, that the celebrated text of the heavenly witnesses was adopted in the version which prevailed in the Latin Church, previously to the introduction of the modern Vulgate."[74]
Therefore,
claims that the Comma made its way into the King James Version by way
of the Roman Catholic Vulgate are false.
The Old Latin was translated in the second century, but from what? Seeing as the New Testament was originally written in Greek, the translators had to have copies of Greek papyri not too far descended from the original autographs. It is interesting to note every single one of the papyrus manuscripts are silent with regard to I John 5:7-8.The passage has been lost from every one of them. There is no way to know if they contained the Comma, but the translators of the Old Latin had to get it from somewhere.[75]
Studies show that the principal papyrus manuscripts used by modern textual critics as allies of the minority text of a and B (P45, P66, and P75 in particular) agree with the Textus Receptus to a greater extent. Together, these three papyri agree with the Textus Receptus in 20 places as opposed to 18 places with Vaticanus and 4 places with Sinaiticus.[76]
It is conceivable that these manuscripts once contained the Comma. Besides, Maynard shows that at least 6000 Old Latin manuscripts have been neglected and consequently remain unexamined. It is very probable that many of these also contain the Comma.[77]
Dogmatic
conclusions, much like Metzger's, cannot be drawn without evaluating all the
evidence.
Metzger's
presentation of the evidence from the Latin Vulgate is misleading.
The next statement that Metzger makes is that the Johannine Comma is not found in the earliest form of the Vulgate as issued by Jerome.[78]
True, it does not appear in Codex Fuldensis (A.D. 546), one of the oldest extant Vulgate manuscripts, but Jerome, the author of the Vulgate, died a little over a century before this codex was copied. How can Metzger legitimately argue that this codex is the exact text that came from Jerome? In fact, Jerome himself, in the fourth century, claimed that irresponsible transcribers left out I John 5:7-8 in the Greek codices.[79]
If they were cutting it out in the Greek manuscripts, what would stop them from doing it in the Latin Vulgate manuscripts? Seeing as Jerome views such an omission as irresponsible, it is only logical to believe that he included it in his translation. Later, it was cut out as is evidenced by Codex Fuldensis, but reappears again in well-known Vulgate manuscripts such as Ulmensis (ca. 850) and Toletanus (988).Scrivener said that the passage "is found in the printed Latin Vulgate, and in perhaps 49 out of every 50 of its manuscripts."[80]
Moreover,
against Metzger's claim of lateness, the Comma is claimed by others
to be found in twenty-nine of the fairest, oldest, and most correct of
extant Vulgate manuscripts.[81]
As has been adduced, Bruce Metzger's external evidence for the omission of I John 5:7-8 in the UBS4 is extremely misleading and deceptive at almost every point. Thus, he fails to prove that the passage is an interpolation. The textual evidence supporting the Comma is much greater than most critics would have us to believe; an honest evaluation of the evidence yields a case for inclusion that is at least as plausible as one for exclusion.[82]
Once
again, the burden of proof lies with the accuser. Metzger falls short.
If I John 5:7-8 is genuine, why is it missing from so many Greek manuscripts? Better yet, does its absence constitute disproof? No, it does not, for no modern textual critic argues that a majority of manuscripts is the sole sufficient proof. In fact, there are readings accepted in the UBS4 that are accepted on far less evidence than that of I John 5:7-8 (cf. Matthew 11:19; II Corinthians 5:3; James 4:14).Even Aland, the UBS' own, admits that the true text can hypothetically exist in one manuscript.[83]
The majority, however, is not as extensive as most people think. Oftentimes, the statement is made to the effect that there are only four Greek manuscripts out of 5000 that contain the text of the Comma.[84]
Such a statement implies that 5000 manuscripts contain I John 5.This is hardly the case, for less than 525 even contain this chapter. Of these, only 498 are hostile to the Comma. This is substantially less than 5000.Of those 498 manuscripts, only 14 of them predate the ninth century.[85]
The
same scholars that reject the Comma criticize the Textus Receptus for
following so-called "late manuscripts" when they use the same manuscripts as
the bulk of their evidence against I John 5:7-8.In other words, 97 per cent
of their evidence is late. Maynard asserts:
Opposers of 1 John v.7f are not admitting, that after four centuries (the 17th to 20th) of scholars searching for MSS they could not even muster 3% of all their evidence against 1 John v.7f as being significant, by their standards. Only 14 Greek MSS (2.8%) of the 482 hostile MSS [Maynard arrives at this number from the fact that Metzger considers 16 of the 498 manuscripts to be worthless and irrelevant] they would consider boasting about, were dated from the ninth century or earlier.[86]
Another "reason that the absence of 1 John 5:7-8 in Greek MSS before the sixteenth century does not constitute disproof is that God is not obligated to have a regular transmission through Greek MSS for every authentic verse."[87]
God
may have allowed I John 5:7-8 to fall out of 14 Greek manuscripts prior to
the ninth century and many thereafter for the purpose of drawing our
attention to the doctrine of the Trinity, for after all, the Comma is
the most concise and clear statement regarding this subject throughout all
of Scripture. Such a scenario is at least plausible and worthy of
consideration.
Lexical Analysis
The Johannine Comma contains one word that is worthy of lexical analysis with regard to the issue at hand—logoV. This is a well-known term employed with respect to Jesus Christ in Johannine Christology. The second person of the Trinity is referred to as the "Word." Such a metaphor is unique to the Apostle John and can also be found in John 1:1, 14; I John 1:1; and Revelation 19:13.This fact, in and of itself, argues heavily for the authenticity of the verse, for as Robertson admits, the occurrence of the metaphor in the three aforementioned books is "an incidental argument for identity of authorship."[88]
LogoV,
being a favorite of John's with reference to Christ, was appropriate to use
when referring to Christ's divine eternality with God the Father and the
Holy Spirit as is the case in the Comma. On the other hand, if
the passage is an interpolation that was added to prove the trinity, the
forger almost certainly would not have employedlogoV overuioV as
found in the common Trinitarian triage of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (cf.
Matthew 28:19).This issue of tradition, however, will be discussed more in
depth under the traditional analysis.
Footnotes:
