EDWARD HILL
The Johannine Comma
(1 John 5:7)
In the Textus Receptus 1 John 5:7-8 reads as follows:
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 IN EARTH, the
spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
The words printed in
capital letters constitute the so-called Johannine comma, the best known
of the Latin Vulgate readings of the Textus Receptus, a reading which, on
believing principles, must be regarded as possibly genuine. This comma has
been the occasion of much controversy and is still an object of interest to
textual critics. One of the more recent discussions of it is found in Windisch's
Katholischen Briefe (revised by Preisker, 1951); (26) a more accessible
treatment of it in English is that provided by A. D. Brooke (1912) in the International
Critical Commentary. (27) Metzger (1964) also deals with this passage in his
handbook, but briefly. (28)
(a) How the
Johannine Comma Entered the Textus Receptus
As has been
observed above, the Textus Receptus has both its human aspect and its divine
aspect, like the Protestant Reformation itself or any other work of God's
providence. And when we consider the manner in which the Johannine comma entered
the Textus Receptus, we see this human element at work. Erasmus omitted the Johannine
comma from the first edition (1516) of his printed Greek New Testament on
the ground that it occurred only in the Latin version and not in any Greek
manuscript. To quiet the outcry that arose, he agreed to restore it if but one
Greek manuscript could be found which contained it. When one such manuscript was
discovered soon afterwards, bound by his promise, he included the disputed
reading in his third edition (1522), and thus it gained a permanent place in the
Textus Receptus. The manuscript which forced Erasmus to reverse his stand seems
to have been 61, a 15th or 16th-century manuscript now kept at Trinity College,
Dublin. Many critics believe that this manuscript was written at Oxford about
1520 for the special purpose of refuting Erasmus, and this is what Erasmus
himself suggested in his notes.
The Johannine
comma is also found in Codex Ravianus, in the margin of 88,
and in 629. The evidence of these three manuscripts, however, is not regarded as
very weighty, since the first two are thought to have taken this disputed
reading from early printed Greek texts and the latter (like 61) from the
Vulgate.
But whatever may
have been the immediate cause, still, in the last analysis, it was not trickery
which was responsible for the inclusion of the Johannine comma in the
Textus Receptus but the usage of the Latin-speaking Church. It was this usage
which made men feel that this.reading ought to be included in the Greek text and
eager to keep it there after its inclusion had been accomplished. Back of this
usage, we may well believe, was the guiding providence of God, and therefore the
Johannine comma ought to be retained as at least possibly genuine.
(b) The Early
Existence of the Johannine Comma
Evidence for
the early existence of the Johannine comma is found in the Latin versions
and in the writings of the Latin Church Fathers. For example, it seems to have
been quoted at Carthage by Cyprian (c. 250) who writes as follows: "And
again concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: and
the Three are One." (29) It is true that Facundus, a 6th-century
African bishop, interpreted Cyprian as referring to the following verse, (30)
but, as Scrivener (1833) remarks, it is "surely safer and more candid"
to admit that Cyprian read the Johannine comma in his New Testament
manuscript "than to resort to the explanation of Facundus." (31)
The first undisputed
citations of the Johannine comma occur in the writing of two 4th-century
Spanish bishops, Priscillian, (32) who in 385 was beheaded by the Emperor
Maximus on the charge of sorcery and heresy, and Idacius Clarus, (33)
Priscillian's principal adversary and accuser. In the 5th century the Johannine
comma was quoted by several orthodox African writers to defend the doctrine
of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals, who ruled North Africa
from 489 to 534 and were fanatically attached to the Arian heresy. (34) And
about the same time it was cited by Cassiodorus (480-570), in Italy. (35)
The comma is also found in r an Old Latin manuscript of the 5th or
6th century, and in the Speculum, a treatise which contains an Old Latin
text. It was not included in Jerome's original edition of the Latin Vulgate but
around the year 800 it was taken into the text of the Vulgate from the Old Latin
manuscripts. It was found in the great mass of the later Vulgate manuscripts and
in the Clementine edition of the Vulgate, the official Bible of the Roman
Catholic Church.
(c) Is the
Johannine Comma an Interpolation?
Thus on the
basis of the external evidence it is at least possible that the Johannine
comma is a reading that somehow dropped out of the Greek New Testament text
but was preserved in the Latin text through the usage of the Latin-speaking
Church, and this possibility grows more and more toward probability as we
consider the internal evidence.
In the first place,
how did the Johannine comma originate if it be not genuine, and how did
it come to be interpolated into the Latin New Testament text? To this question
modern scholars have a ready answer. It arose, they say, as a trinitarian
interpretation of I John 5:8, which originally read as follows: For there are
three that bear witness the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and
these three agree in one. Augustine was one of those who interpreted 1 John
5:8 as referring to the Trinity. "If we wish to inquire about these things,
what they signify, not absurdly does the Trinity suggest Itself, who is the one,
only, true, and highest God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, concerning whom it
could most truly be said, Three are Witnesses, and the Three are One. By the
word spirit we consider God the Father to be signified, concerning the
worship of whom the Lord spoke, when He said, God is a spirit. By the
word blood the Son is signified, because the Word was made flesh. And
by the word water we understand the Holy Spirit. For when Jesus spoke
concerning the water which He was about to give the thirsty, the evangelist
says, This He spake concerning the Spirit whom those that believed in Him
would receive. " (36)
Thus, according to
the critical theory, there grew up in the Latin speaking regions of ancient
Christendom a trinitarian interpretation of the spirit, the water, and the
blood mentioned in 1 John 5:8, the spirit signifying the Father, the
blood the Son, and the water the Holy Spirit And out of this
trinitarian interpretation of 1 John 5:8 developed the Johannine comma, which
contrasts the witness of the Holy Trinity in heaven with the witness of the
spirit, the water, and the blood on earth.
But just at this
point the critical theory encounters a serious difficulty. If the comma originated
in a trinitarian interpretation of 1 John 5:8, why does it not contain the usual
trinitarian formula, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Why does it exhibit the singular combination, never met with elsewhere, the
Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit? According to some critics, this
unusual phraseology was due to the efforts of the interpolator who first
inserted the Johannine comma into the New Testament text. In a mistaken
attempt to imitate the style of the Apostle John, he changed the term Son to
the term Word. But this is to attribute to the interpolator a craftiness
which thwarted his own purpose in making this interpolation, which was surely to
uphold the doctrine of the Trinity, including the eternal generation of the Son.
With this as his main concern it is very unlikely that he would abandon the
time-honored formula, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and devise an
altogether new one, Father, Word, and Holy Spirit.
In the second place,
the omission of the Johannine comma seems to leave the passage
incomplete. For it is a common scriptural usage to present solemn truths or
warnings in groups of three or four, for example, the repeated Three things,
yea four of Proverbs 30, and the constantly recurring refrain, for three
transgressions and for four, of the prophet Amos. In Genesis 40 the butler
saw three branches and the baker saw three baskets. And in Matt.
12:40 Jesus says, As Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's
belly, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of
the earth. It is in accord with biblical usage, therefore, to expect that in
1 John 5:7-8 the formula, there are three that bear witness, will be
repeated at least twice. When the Johannine comma is included, the
formula is repeated twice. When the comma is omitted, the formula is repeated
only once, which seems strange.
In the third place,
the omission of the Johannine comma involves a grammatical difficulty.
The words spirit, water, and blood are neuter in gender, but in 1
John 5:8 they are treated as masculine. If the Johannine comma is rejected,
it is hard to explain this irregularity. It is usually said that in 1 John 5:8 the
spirit, the water, and the blood are personalized and that this is the
reason for the adoption of the masculine gender. But it is hard to see how such
personalization would involve the change from the neuter to the masculine. For
in verse 6 the word Spirit plainly refers to the Holy Spirit, the Third Person
of the Trinity. Surely in this verse the word Spirit is
"personalized," and yet the neuter gender is used. Therefore since
personalization did not bring about a change of gender in verse 6, it cannot
fairly be pleaded as the reason for such a change in verse 8. If, however, the Johannine
comma is retained, a reason for placing the neuter nouns spirit, water, and
blood in the masculine gender becomes readily apparent. It was due to the
influence of the nouns Father and Word, which are masculine. Thus
the hypothesis that the Johannine comma is an interpolation is full of
difficulties.
(d) Reasons for
the Possible Omission of the Johannine Comma
For the
absence of the Johannine comma from all New Testament documents save
those of the Latin-speaking West the following explanations are possible.
In the first place,
it must be remembered that the comma could easily have been omitted
accidentally through a common type of error which is called homoioteleuton (similar
ending). A scribe copying 1 John 5:7-8 under distracting conditions might have
begun to write down these words of verse 7, there are three that bear
witness, but have been forced to look up before his pen had completed this
task. When he resumed his work, his eye fell by mistake on the identical
expression in verse 8. This error would cause him to omit all of the Johannine
comma except the words in earth, and these might easily have been
dropped later in the copying of this faulty copy. Such an accidental omission
might even have occurred several times, and in this way there might have grown
up a considerable number of Greek manuscripts which did not contain this
reading.
In the second place,
it must be remembered that during the 2nd and 3rd centuries (between 220 and
270, according to Harnack); (37) the heresy which orthodox Christians were
called upon to combat was not Arianism (since this error had not yet arisen) but
Sabellianism (so named after Sabellius, one of its principal promoters),
according to which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were one in the
sense that they were identical. Those that advocated this heretical view were
called Patripassians (Father-sufferers), because they believed that God
the Father, being identical with Christ, suffered and died upon the cross, and Monarchians,
because they claimed to uphold the Monarchy (sole-government) of God.
It is possible,
therefore, that the Sabellian heresy brought the Johannine comma into
disfavor with orthodox Christians. The statement, these three are one, no
doubt seemed to them to teach the Sabellian view that the Father, the Son and
the Holy Spirit were identical. And if during the course of the controversy
manuscripts were discovered which had lost this reading in the accidental manner
described above, it is easy to see how the orthodox party would consider these
mutilated manuscripts to represent the true text and regard the Johannine
comma as a heretical addition. In the Greek-speaking East especially the comma
would be unanimously rejected, for here the struggle against Sabellianism
was particularly severe.
Thus it was not
impossible that during the 3rd century amid the stress and strain of the
Sabellian controversy, the Johannine comma lost its place in the Greek
text, but was preserved in the Latin texts of Africa and Spain, where the
influence of Sabellianism was probably not so great. In other words, it is not
impossible that the Johannine comma was one of those few true readings of
the Latin Vulgate not occurring in the Traditional Greek Text but incorporated
into the Textus Receptus under the guiding providence of God. In these rare
instances God called upon the usage of the Latin-speaking Church to correct the
usage of the Greek speaking Church. (38)
I
might add that I do find fault with several statements of Edward Hill!
Under
point (A) Hill uses circular reasoning, that is rather faulty! Please notice the
shadow of a doubt that Hill still expresses here, "and
therefore the Johannine comma ought to be retained as at least possibly
genuine." So
it is almost, possibly, maybe, genuine?
How
many verses do you want in your Bible that are "possibly genuine?"
In
point (B) Hill expresses what to him is early usage. The earliest quote
(please notice that this is not a direct quote!) he offers is from the third
century. If it were genuine shouldn't it be as early as the first
century? OK, so not all verses do we have written so early.
But
IF this verse were genuine, shouldn't it have made it into the body of at least
the Vulgate text (the primary text to "preserve it") before the Ninth
century? Is there another verse that made such a late entrance that is
still embraced today? I know not any!
So
it took over 800 years for this genuine verse to make it into the masses of
manuscripts? "but
around the year 800 it was taken into the text of the Vulgate from the Old Latin
manuscripts. It was found in the great mass of the later Vulgate manuscripts and
in the Clementine edition of the Vulgate, the official Bible of the Roman
Catholic Church."
In
point (C1) Hill again expresses its concrete status. "...it
is at least possible that the Johannine comma is a reading that somehow
dropped out of the Greek New Testament text but was preserved in the Latin..."
Sure!
I mean anything IS possible! But how likely? How did it drop
out of all of the other versions also? Why then out of all of the hundreds
of various manuscripts of 1 John in all of the various languages is it omitted,
with the exception of the later Latin?
Hill
ask the question, "If
the comma originated in a trinitarian interpretation of 1 John 5:8, why
does it not contain the usual trinitarian formula..." This
is a great question! But one that Hill ignores when finding his earliest
supposed quote of this statement! See Crypian's supposed
"quote" in point (B).
(C2)Do
all statement in the Bible come in threes? Or fours if Hill's Proverb examples
are followed!
(C3)Is
this the only grammatical difficulty in the New Testament? Then why must
this one be smoothed out with an interpolation?
In
point (D1) Hill brings up the very common problem of omission by homoioteleuton.
Once again, it is possible. But it is
VERY unlikely! And why can't we find that early Greek MS that does
mention it? Or the Latin from this early time? Or Coptic, Syriac,
etc. Or what about the over one million quotations of the New Testament by
Church Fathers? Shouldn't we find this very "orthodox" verse
quoted often?
(D2)
OK, so that explains a potential hypothesis for it being lost in the Eastern
Church Greek manuscripts, how do you then explain its omission in the other
versions, Coptic, Syriac, etc? Shouldn't it be found in at least one of
the many manuscripts?