삼위일체를 증거하는 말씀들

[하토브]

지난번에 우리는 요한의 쉼표 부분이 진정한 성경의일부인지를 놓고 분별했으며 그것이 진정한 성경의 일부임을 다음의 글에서 증거하였습니다.

여기서는 그 구절 뿐만 아니라, 다른 성경 구절들에서 삼위일체를 찾아 볼수 있음을 언급하고, 이 요한의 쉼표 부분의 헬라어 원어문을 올립니다.

잠언 30장 4절은 하나님에게 아들이 있음을 증거합니다.

요한 16장 13절은 예수님이 하나님께 가신 다음 성령을 보내주시는 것을 가르칩니다. 성령님이 에너지가 아니고, 인격체임을 예수님은 그가, 라는 표현으로 말씀하십니다. 이 대목에서  아버지와 아들과 성령이 동시에 언급되는 것입니다.

요한 17장 3절에서 영생은 유일하신 참 하나님과 예수 그리스도를 아는 것이라고 말씀하심에서도 아버지와 아들과 성령(아는 것)이 언급된 것입니다.

삼위일체는 창세기 1장에서 부터 나타납니다. 2절 하나님의 신이 수면위에 운행하셨으며, 하나님은 말씀으로 빛을 창조하셨습니다. 그 말씀은 바로 예수 그리스도 이셨습니다. 이분들은 1장 26절에서 우리의 형상을 따라 우리 모양대로 사람을 만들자고 하십니다. 바로 우리는 복수를 포용하는 삼위 하나님을 지칭하는 것입니다.

그것이 바로 인간의 영혼육과도 관련되는 것입니다.

다음으로 창세기 18장 1절부터 여호와께서 나타나셨다고 말씀하시면서 세 사람으로 나타난 장면을 볼수 있습니다. 이 세 사람중 두 사람은 19장에서 보여주듯이 인류 심판의 권세를 가진 하나님의 말아크(특사)들이었으며 한분은 여호와 이셨습니다. 이 말아크가 자칭 하나님이라고 부른 예는 창세기 31장 13절로 증명한바 있습니다. 따라서 아브라함에게 나타났던  세사람은 바로 삼위 하나님이셨던 것입니다.

바빌론 종교의 삼두신 사상은 이 삼위일체와는 구분됩니다. 그들의 삼두신이란, 개체들간에 유기적 연결이 없는 삼신론이며, 그것은 니므롯과 그의아내 세미라미스와 그 아들 담무스(에스겔 8:14)를 섬기는 것입니다. 사탄은 창세기 3장 15절의 예언을 얼른 흉내내어 이런 삼신론 사상을 만들어 내엇습니다. 그것을 복사한 것이 이집트의 오씨리스와 이시스와 호러스 신 숭배이며, 그것은 또한 카톨릭 안에도 들어와 있습니다. 그들이 마리아 숭배를 행하고 그리스도를 안고 있으며, 사순절을 지키는 것은 바로 이런 삼신론의 바탕위에 있는 것입니다.

그러나 우리 진정한 그리스도인들이 섬기는 삼위 하나님에 대한 믿음은 그런 삼신론과는 크게 구분되는 것입니다.  이 삼위는 일체로 이어집니다. 그것이 바로 성경에서 가르치는 바이며 특히 요한일서 5장 7-8 절에 잘 나와 있습니다. 따라서 삼위일체가 바빌론의 삼신론 종교와 같다는 주장은 바빌론 종교인들의 작전에 말려들어가는 것입니다!

바빌론에도 부활이있었다거나, 페르시아 종교에도 부활이 있었다는 주장들을 근거로 기독교는 페르시아 종교에서 나왔다고 비방하는 자들과 동일한 논조를 펼치고 있습니다. 이것이 바로 반기독교적 이론이라 아니 할수 없는 것입니다.

제가 삼위일체를 증거하는 구절들로 꼭 언급해야 할 구절 하나를 빠뜨렸네요. 그것은 마태 28장 19절입니다. 아버지와 아들과 성령의 이름으로 침례베풀라고 성경은 가르칩니다. 그런데 아버지와 아들과 성령 앞에 모두 관사가 붙었습니다. 그런 다음, 세분의 이름에 단수를 사용했습니다. 즉 관사가 붙어서 세분의 개체를 기술하는 한편, 이름은 단수로 사용하여 이름이 공용 이름이 되었다는 것입니다. 이것을 삼위일체로밖에는 설명하기 어렵습니다.

물론 저는 삼위일체가 반드시 옳고, 다른 주장은 틀리다고 말하지 않습니다. 그러나 저는 삼위일체보다 더 정확히 표현할수 있는 신관(God-Heads) 에  대한 인간 언어를 찾지못하였습니다. 그리하여 다만 저는 삼위일체론을 좀더 정교히 정확히, 정밀하게 이해하려고 노력하지 그것에 반대할 이유를 찾지 못하고 있습니다.

이제 요일 5장 7-8절의 원어문을 올립니다.

οτι τρεισ εισιν οι μαρτυρουντεσ εν τω ουρανω, ο πατηρ, ο λογοσ, και το Αγιον Πνευμα και ουτοι τρεισ εν εισι . και Τρεισ εισιν οι μαρτυροουντεσ εν τη γη, το Πνευμα, και το υδωρ, και το αιμα' και οι τρεισ εισ το εν εισιν

여기서 가장 문제가 되는 것은 끝부분에 나온 호이 트레이스( 세 분들

입니다. 그 앞의 모든 단어들이 중성인데 반하여 남성 복수로 받은 것입니다. 이런 문법 방식은 성경 어디에도 없습니다. 이것이 바로 7절과 8절이 이어진 문장으로서 요한의 쉼표가 원래 포함되었던 것을 증거해주는 것입니다.

이제 삼위일체와 관련하여 생각할 것은 여기에 언급된 아버지와 말씀과 성령 모두에게 별개의 관사들이사용되었다는 것입니다. 즉 별개의 개체들로 표현하고 있다는 사실입니다.

그러면서도 그 세분들이 한분으로 계신다고 가르칩니다. 이것이 삼위일체의 증거구절이 아니고 무엇이겠습니까?

8888888888888888888888

요한일서 5장

성서공회 개역개정 

7    증언하는 이가 셋이니
8    성령과 물과 피라 또한 이 셋은 합하여 하나이니라

텍스투스 리셉투스(하토브역)

7 왜냐하면 하늘에서 증거하시는 이들이 세분 계시며 아버지와 말씀과 성령이시고 바로 그 세 분들이 한분으로 계시기때문이라. 8 또한 땅에서도 증거하는 이들이 셋 있으니, 영과 물과 피이며, 그 셋이 하나로 있느니라.

그런데 이 구절들에서 증거하시는 이들은 모두 남성 복수 관사를 사용하고 있으며, 그 셋이 또한 남성 복수 관사를 사용하고 잇습니다. 따라서 헬라어의 성과 수를 반영한 번역은 다음과 같습니다.

왜냐하면 하늘에서 증거하시는 이(남자분)들이 세분 계시며 아버지와 말씀과 성령이시고 바로 그 세 (남자)분들이 한분으로 계시기때문이라. 8 또한 땅에서도 증거하는 이들(남자분들)이 셋 있으니, 영과 물과 피이며, 그 셋(세 남자분들)이 하나로(중성) 있느니라.

이것은 세분을 구분하는 한편 그 구분된 세분이 한분으로 계신다는 뜻입니다. 이것은 성경상에서 삼위일체를 증거하는 가장 강력한 증거입니다.

위에서 그 차이를 파악하시겠습니까? 위에 한글 개역 개정이나, NIV, NASB, ASV, NLT, RV, NRSV, ESV, 등 압도적 다수의 수많은 현대역본에서는 빠지고, 킹제임스, New King James, YOung's Literal Translation, Webster, Third Millennium 등의 성경에서는 포함되어 있는 5장 7절의 없어진 부분을 요한의 쉼표( Johanine Comma) 라고 불리웁니다.

이부분에 관하여는 서로 원래는 성경에 없었는데 후대의 사람들이 추가한 것이다, 반대로 원래 부터 있었는데 후대에 대부분의 사본과 성경들에서 없어진 것이다, 하는 주장들이 서로 대립되어 왔습니다.

 이에 관하여 결론만 간단히 말씀드린다면 이를 뒷받침하는 사본들이 극소수에 불과함에도 불구하고, 이 컴마 부분은 진정한 성경의 일부라는 사실입니다.

지금은 아래 글들을 올려놓는 것만 합니다.

요점은 1500년이전의 그리스어 사본들 중에도 요한의 쉼표가 포함된 사본들이 있습니다. NIV, Metzger는 이점에서 거짓말하고 있습니다.

1500년 이전의 그리스어사본들로서 요한의 쉼표를 포함하고 있는 사본들은 다음과 같습니다. 61번외에도 88, 221, 429, 629, 636

에라스무스가 사본이 없는 것을 만들어달라고 주문해서 만들어낸 것이 아니라, 에라스무스는 요한의 쉼표가 성경에 분명히 포함되는 줄을 알고 있었습니다. 그러나 그리스어 사본으로서 근거해줄수 있는 사본을 찾지 못했으며, 그는 만일 사본이 한두개만 나와도 바로 포함시키겠다고 약속했고, 그런 사본 소유자들이 나타나서 3,4판부터 포함시킨 것입니다.

에라스무스가 주문하여 제조해낸 사본이라고 비난하는 자들은 근거없는 거짓말쟁이들이며, 그들의 구원자체가 의심스럽습니다. 웨스트코트, 홀트, 이런 사람들은 심령학회, 유령학회 회원들이거나 마리아 숭배자들이었습니다. 수많은 그리스도인들은 멧츠거가 구원얻지 못한 사람으로 분별합니다.

이 요한의 쉼표에 대해 반대하는 사람들이

꼭 피해가는 진실이 있습니다.

그것은 그리스어 문법입니다. 성경은 하나님의 말씀입니다. 하나님의 말씀은 살아있습니다. 하나님의 말씀은 살아서 무엇이 옳은지 그른지를 분별해줍니다. 성경은 성경이 증명해줍니다. 성경은 침묵하지 않습니다. 성경은 어느 성경이 정확한지를 증명해줍니다. 그리하여 요한의 쉼표가 없이는 5장 8절이 이상하게 말이 안되는 문법구조를 갖게되는 것입니다. 그런 문법상의 불일치는 신약성경 어디에서도 찾아볼 수 없습니다. 왜냐하면 앞에 나오는 물, 피, 영은 모두 중성명사인데 8절에서 받는 셋(τρεις)의 관사는 중성인 타(τα)가 아니고 남성인 호이(οι) 입니다. 즉 물, 피, 영 이 세 남자들은 한분으로 계시느니라, 로 번역해야 합니다.

이런 문법은 신약성경 전체를 통해서 찾아볼 수 없는 불일치인데 어떤 이들은 성령이 중성에서 남성으로 바뀐 것을 근거로 삼습니다만, 영은 중성이고 앞에 하기온이 붙어서 성령(πνευμα  αγιον)이 되면 항상 남성이 되었습니다. 따라서 남성 복합명사를 남성으로 받는 것은 당연한 일입니다.

그러나 여기서처럼 중성인 단어들을 어떤 인격을 붙여서 인간인 남자들로 받는 것은 논리적으로나 문법적으로 이상할 수 밖에 없습니다.

이런 문법상의 불일치를 다른 어디에서도 찾아볼 수 없습니다. 이것을 자꾸만 주장하는 사람들은 그리스어 문법을 모르는 사람들이기 때문에 용감합니다! 무식은 용감함의 큰 원천이 됩니다!

그런데 요즈음 이점에 요한의 쉼표를 반대하는 사람들이 이점에 대하여 해명하는 것을 보면, 그 정도 문법이 틀리는 것은 성경에 부지기수다, 는 말을 하고 있습니다. 그렇지 않습니다! 다만 성경에서 어순이 수시로 바뀌는 경우가 있는데 이는 강조의 필요성에 따라 순서기 바뀌는 정도일 뿐입니다. 신약에서 중성인 명사들을 남성의 대명사나 관사로 받는 경우는 없습니다! 이 사람들은 성경이 문법적으로 틀렸다는 것을 주장하는 사람들입니다!

이 사람들은 대부분 마태 23:14, 18:11, 루카 17:36, 마가 9:44, 46 등 없어진 부분에 대하여 갖가지 이유로 없어진 것을 옹호하는 사람들입니다. 그런 사람들은 또 예수님이 틀렸다는 것을 강력히 주장하는 사람들이기도 합니다. 왜냐하면 예수님은 이렇게 말씀하셨기 때문이지요.

마태 24장 35 하늘과 땅은 없어지겠으나 내 말들은 결코 없어지지 아니하리라.

이 요한의 쉼표가 요한의 문체임을 증명하는 증거가 성경자체에 있습니다. 삼위일체론자들이 나중에 삽입한 것이라면 아버지와 아들과 성령이라고 했을 것입니다. 그러나 요한의 쉼표는 아버지와 말씀과 성령이라고 하여 일반적인 예상을 훨씬 뛰어넘는 것이었습니다. 이 예수님을 말씀으로 표현하는 것은 요한의 문체로서 큰 증거가 됩니다.

역사적으로 수많은 학자들이 이 구절을 킹제임스 성경에 있는대로 인용했습니다. 심지어 카톨릭 성경인 제롬 성경에도 포함되었습니다. 카톨릭이 이 제롬성경에서 떠나게 된 것은, 카톨릭은 성경을 공부하지 않던 사람들이었는데 나중에 차츰 이런 논쟁이 일어나는 것을 보니까, 시내사본이나, 바티칸 사본을 옹호해야 할 필요성이 제롬 성경을 지키는 것보다 훨씬 큰 것을 깨달은 것입니다. 그리하여 요한의 컴마를 뺀 것입니다.

카톨릭이 삼위일체를 강조하는 이유는 마리아를 하나님의 어머니로 올리기 위한 필수품이기 때문입니다. 예수님의 신성이 빠지면 마리아는 하나님의 어머니가 안됩니다! 그러므로 카톨릭은 예수님의 신성을 가장 강력히 주장합니다만, 마리아는 전혀 언급도 안되어 있는 요한일서 5장 7절을 그토록 열심히 옹호할 이유도 없었습니다.

왜냐하면 그 쉼표부분이 빠진 이유는 이집트와 서로마 지역에서는 영지주의와 아리우스 이단들에 의한 예수님의 신성을 부인함에서 온 것이었고, 동로마지역에서는 사벨리우스의 양태론 때문에 삭제된 것이었기 때문입니다. 사실 로마 카톨릭의 뿌리는 바빌론주의와 이집트의 잡신사상이 근간이었습니다. 그런 바탕에서 볼 때 요한일서 5장7절은 그다지 좋은 구절도 아니며, 카톨릭은 이에 따라 그들의 성경에서 딤전 3장16절도 그는 육체로 나타난바 되시고로 바꾸었습니다. 원래는 하나님은 육체로 나타난바 되시고 였으며 99% 이상의 압도적 다수의 사본들은 킹제임스 성경을 여기서도 지지하고 있습니다.

카톨릭은 추기경을 통해 에라스무스에게 요한의 쉼표를 갖고 있는 사본 61번을 넘겨주기도 했습니다만, 나중에 성경이 기독교에 의해 애독되는 것을 보고, 에라스무스의 책을 금서목록에 올려놓고 모든 카톨릭으로 하여금 읽어서는 안되는 책이라고 올려놓았고 오늘날에도 그 금서목록에서 빼지 않은 것으로 알고 있습니다. 이와 같이 카톨릭이 전에는 올렸다가 이제는 빼냈다해서 그것이 카톨릭이 잘못한 것을 수정했다는 것을 증명하는 것이 아닙니다. 그럼 교황님은 무오류였는데 틀렸었다고 주장하는 것이겠지요? 아니면 베드로의 의 자위에서 선언한 것이 아니니까 틀렸을 수도 있다고 변명하겠지요?

그러므로 우리는 요한의 쉼표(요한일서 5장 7절의 빠진 부분)이 진정한 성경의 일부분임을 믿을 수 있습니다.

바티칸 사본은 간음한 여인 이야기 ( Pericope Adulturae) 마가복음 16장 장문( Mark’s Longer Ending 16:9-20)도 빠뜨렸습니다. 그렇지만 마가복음은 619개 사본들 중 617 사본이 킹제임스와 텍스투스 리셉투스를 지지합니다.

오직 바티칸 사본과 시내산 사본만이 열두 구절을 빼놓고 있습니다!

요한 8장은 920개 사본들 중 900개 사본이 킹제임스 성경을 지지하고 20개 사본만이 그 이야기를 안갖고 있습니다. 이 모든 것들은 더 파고 들면 모두 분별이 되고 확인이 됩니다. 단지 제가 시간이 없어서 못쓸 뿐입니다. 아래 글들 보시면 어느 정도 확인이 될 것입니다.

Defence of the Johannine Comma
Setting the Record Straight on I John 5:7-8

---

Introduction - The Charges Made Against the Johannine Comma
The Evidence from the Greek Manuscripts
What About Erasmus' Promise?
The Evidence from Other Versions
The Evidence of the Patristic Authors
Why Did the Orthodox Writers Not Use This Verse in the "Trinitarian Controversies"?
Conclusions
End Notes

---

Introduction - The Charges Made Against the Johannine Comma

Throughout the history of man's dealings with God's Word, the Holy Bible, few portions of Scripture have suffered from more vigourous assaults then the passage I John 5:7-8, otherwise known as the Johannine Comma. Because this verse is one of the most direct statements of the biblical doctrine of the Trinity, it has borne the brunt of attack by those who are in opposition to trinitarian beliefs, these most often being either unitarians such as Muslims and certain of the various pseudo-Christian cult groups (Jehovah's Witnesses, some Churches of God, etc.), or theological liberals who tend to view the Bible from an entirely naturalistic perspective.

The attacks upon this verse have come from all angles. The personal experience of this author has mostly been in dealing with Muslims, whose ideas about the Trinity generally hold to the very simplistic and erroneous picture presented in the Qur'an (to see a typical Muslim argument against the Trinity, and this argument dealt with, click here). For the most part, Muslim apologetics on the subject of this verse are simply the plagiarism of large parts of a "foundational" article dealing with this passage found at the Answering-Christianity website. Interestingly, most Islamic attacks on this verse finds their basis in the work of liberal and atheistic scholars who have an ideological predisposition to oppose the verse. Commonly relied upon as "proof" that the Comma is a corruption of God's Word is the statement below,

"The famous interpolation after 'three witnesses' is not printed even in RSVn, and rightly. It cites the heavenly testimony of the Father, the logos, and the Holy Spirit, but is never used in the early Trinitarian controversies. No respectable Greek MS contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th-cent. Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the NT of Erasmus."¹

Other statements along this line abound in liberal and even Neo-Evangelical literature,

"The text about the three heavenly witnesses (I John 5:7 KJV) is not an authentic part of the NT."²

"1 John 5:7 in the KJV reads: 'There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one' but this is an interpolation of which there is no trace before the late fourth century."³

"1 John 5:7 in the Textus Receptus (represented in the KJV) makes it appear that John had arrived at the doctrine of the trinity in explicit form ('the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost'), but this text is clearly an interpolation since no genuine Greek manuscript contains it."⁴

Each of these statements, naturally, find much use among Muslim apologists and other anti-trinitarians who would probably have little use for anything else contained within these works.

Even conservative Evangelical commentators have jumped onto the anti-Comma bandwagon, parroting the same general claims concerning the paucity of Greek manuscript evidence for the trinitarian rendering of these verses. In his commentary on I John, Hiebert refers to the "famous interpolated passage for which there is no valid textual evidence",

"The external evidence is overwhelmingly against the authenticity of these words, commonly known today as "the Johannine Comma." They are found in no Greek uncial manuscripts; no Greek cursive manuscript before the fifteenth century contains them. Only two known Greek cursives (cursive 629 of the fourteenth century and 61 of the sixteenth century) have the addition in their text; cursive 635 of the eleventh century has it in the margin in a seventeenth century hand, and 88 of the twelfth century has it in the margin by a modern hand. In these cursives the words are a manifest translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. No ancient version of the first four centuries gives them; nor is it found in the oldest Vulgate manuscripts. None of the Greek Church Fathers quoted the words contained in this interpolation. As Feuillet points out, their failure to cite it is 'an inexplicable omission if they knew it: in fact, how could they not have used it in the Trinitarian controversies?'"⁵

Hiebert then continues on into a discussion of the much-heralded (and much-overstated) inclusion of the Comma by Erasmus into the third edition of his Greek text. A similar charge is leveled in many of the more popular Evangelical study Bibles. For example, Ryrie states,

"Verse 7 should end with the word record. The rest of verse 7 and all of verse 8 are not in any ancient Greek mss."⁶

Unfortunately for the critics, these claims are either outright falsehoods, or else rest upon incomplete information. Worse, they continue to be propagated uncritically by naturalistic textual scholars like Bruce Metzger and Kurt and Barbara Aland, whose written works routinely perpetuate false information based upon a partial coverage of the evidence available. It is somewhat understandable that those who rely upon information given to them by others (Hiebert, Ryrie, etc.) would repeat the assertions made by textual scholars. It is less understandable that scholars like Metzger and the Alands, who ought very well to have access to the full body of information on this subject, would continue to propagate claims that are verifiably false concerning this passage of Scripture. The disinformation that continues to be perpetuated by liberal textual critics results in confusion among the ranks of God's people concerning the Scriptures, which can only serve to divide and weaken the churches of Christ, the local assemblies who are charged with keeping and guarding the Word of God (I Timothy 3:15).

The primary arguments employed against the authenticity of the Johannine Comma can be roughly summarised into the four following topical areas:

• The paucity and lateness of the Greek manuscript witness
• The lateness of its appearance in the Latin
• Its lacking from all other ancient versions
• The lack of use by patristic writers, especially during the "Trinitarian controversies"

These charges will be addressed individually, in turn, and in detail below. As we will see, each of these charges, when examined, turns out to be either outright false, or else presented in a misleading manner. The intention of this essay is to demonstrate to the reader the authenticity of the Johannine Comma through textual, historical, grammatical, and logical means.

The Evidence from the Greek Manuscripts

In the minds of the modernistic textual critics, the Greek manuscriptual evidence is THE centre of debate, to the seeming exclusion of nearly everything else. This allows them to focus the discussion surrounding this verse around the one portion of the evidence which would, on its face, seem to support their contentions about the Comma. However, the treatment which the Greek evidence is given suffers from being only partially presented, and often misrepresented, by the Critical Text side of the debate.

The most common statements made by Critical Text supporters about the paucity of evidence for the Comma in the Greek manuscripts sound similar to Metzger's below, who says it,

"...is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight."⁷

Metzger then proceeds to list seven of these manuscripts (#61, #88m, #221m, #429, #636m, #918, #2318), excluding the eighth manuscript, Ottobonianus (#629), a 14th-century manuscript which is listed in the United Bible Society's 4th edition of the Greek New Testament⁸. Now, there are over 5300 extant Greek New Testament manuscripts, so this would on its face seem to be an overwhelming argument against the authenticity of the Johannine Comma.

However, the numbers game is reduced somewhat when we note that only 501 of these manuscripts contain the book of I John, chapter 5. Further, we see that Metzger and the UBS have slighted the actual number of Greek manuscripts which contain the verse. In addition to the ones listed above, D.A. Waite is reported to have identified manuscripts #634 and Omega 110 as containing the Comma, and Holland notes that the Comma appears in the margin of #635⁹. Additionally, Waite also identifies at least ten other manuscripts as possibly containing the Comma, though this is currently unconfirm‎!ed. Most interesting of all is the appearance of this verse in the text of an 8th-century manuscript, Codex Wizanburgensis, as reported by Dabney¹⁰. Finally, there are at least two Greek lectionaries (early didactic texts usually containing copious scriptural citations) in which the Comma appears (Lectionaries #60 and #173).

Much is made of the appearance of the Comma in the margins of several of these manuscripts (specifically, #88, #221, #635, and #636), and the standard interpretation of this occurrence is that later scribes emended the texts with the Comma in the margin. From there, it is said, the emendation made its way into the actual text of manuscripts which were subsequently copied. While this is indeed a plausible contention, it is not conclusive by any means. Equally plausible is the suggestion that the verse appears in the margin as a response by scribes who had seen the verse in other texts, noted its lacking in the manuscript before them, and corrected the text according to what they had previously seen. The existence of Wizanburgensis from the 8th century lends credit to this idea, since it demonstrates in a concrete manner that Comma-containing Greek manuscripts existed at least that far back, and thus the later manuscripts containing the Comma in their margins cannot automatically be attributed to emendation from the Latin Vulgate.

Further, it ought to be evident that the weight of numbers on the side of Comma-deleted manuscripts is at least partially nullified by the "oldest-is-best" arguments which the Critical Text crowd loves to advance in favour of the Alexandrian texts. While it is true that all but around 10-20 of the Greek texts contain the Comma, and most of these are late, the vast bulk of those without the Comma are also late, by the standards of the United Bible Society. Around 95% of these Comma-deleted texts are "late" by these standards (post-9th century). The earliest Comma-containing manuscript, Wizanburgensis, predates all but five of the non-Comma bearing texts, and is roughly contemporaneous with another one. Further, at least three other marginal references date to a relatively early period, these being #221m (10th century), #635m (11th century), and #88m (12th century). This could suggest that during that 10th-12th century period, there were still other Comma-bearing manuscripts floating around which provided a source for the addition of this verse to these Greek texts by Greek Orthodox scribes (not the most likely group to be making emendations based upon Latin Vulgate readings). Hence, we see that the "oldest-is-best" argument, which really does not have the merit which its proponents suggest anywise, is harder to apply here, since we see that both types have the bulk of their witness in the late manuscripts, and each has a much smaller portion of its witness from the early texts, though admittedly, the Comma-deleted tradition has older extant witness by four centuries.

Another objection to the Johannine Comma which is brought up in the realm of the Greek manuscriptual evidence is that the various manuscripts containing the fully trinitarian reading for I John 5:7-8 differ among themselves in their rendering of the verse. However, this should in no wise denigrate the authenticity of the Comma for these readings. After all, the Critical Text supporters swear to the superiority of the Alexandrian texts such as Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, because of their antiquity (from the 4th century). Yet, as Pickering reports, these two manuscripts (from the "oldest-and-best" set, mind you) differ from each other in reading, with many very major divergences, over 3000 times in the four Gospels alone¹¹. Thus, if one wants to ignore the witness of certain manuscripts because they vary to some degree within themselves on the reading of a verse, then one would be forced to throw the very basis of the Critical Text set out the window.

In addition, the very fact that there are variant readings for this verse among the Greek manuscripts which contain the Comma lends an air of authenticity to the presence of the Comma in these texts. The Comma in these texts underwent the same sort of natural process of scribal errors that we see in many other verses in multiple transmission of texts, which yielded slightly different wordings. It would seem less authentic if the verse appeared exactly the same, both in marginal and intratextual witnesses, as this would lend credence to the notion of emendation to bring these texts into conformity with the Roman Catholic religion's medieval Vulgate.

Concerning the Alexandrian manuscripts, the hypocrisy of the Critical Text's standard-bearers can be seen when their treatment of I John 5:7 is contrasted with their dealings on other passages which find scant textual support. Using the relative paucity of manuscripts containing the Comma as an excuse (and ignoring the vast amount of external evidences to be discussed below), they will confidently claim that this renders the Comma "illegitimate", "inauthentic", or just a plain "fraud". But yet, we see that the Critical Text supporters include minority readings into the new versions of the Bible, whereas the King James' Textus Receptus reading is in the (sometimes large) majority of the pertinent manuscripts. Holland points out that in I John 1:7, the Critical Texts change the Iesou Christou of the Received Text to Iesou, yet this change is supported in only 24 out of 501 manuscripts of I John which contain this passage. Likewise, I John 2:20, the panta of the Received Text is changed to pantes, on the strength of just 12 out of 501 manuscripts containing this verse¹². The manuscripts involved do not give a clear "old versus new" breakdown either, and the deciding factor is usually breaks down to whether or not the hopelessly corrupt Alexandrian codices contain them.

Many other passages are accepted into the Critical Texts on even less authority than those above. In Matthew 11:19, the phrase "wisdom is justified of her children" is altered to "wisdom is justified of her works" on the emendation of a mere three Greek mss., versus an overwhelming host of both Greek and external evidences. Likewise, the word "for" is removed from James 4:14 on the basis of four Greek mss. and scant external evidence, versus (again) an overwhelming testimony of both Greek and external witness. Similarly, the final clause of Romans 8:24 is changed from "for why does anyone hope for what he sees" to "for who hopes for what he sees", all on the basis of two Greek manuscripts, versus the almost unified witness of the Greek mss. body along with the witness of practically all other ancient versions except the Syriac (which gives several differing readings, many of which don't agree with the Critical Text). In each of these examples, the basis for the emendation is upon the nearly (or sometimes completely) sole witness of some of the favoured Alexandrian texts, as opposed to the much larger and nearly as antique witness of the majority texts, which are almost always supported by the great body of external witness from other ancient versions.

The point to mentioning this is not to cry foul over the inclusion of readings with minority Greek support into a textual edition. Rather, is it just the opposite, to demonstrate that even the modernistic textual critics recognise that there are other weighting factors than mere number of manuscripts which should be used to determine whether a reading belongs in the text, even if their particular weighting factors are based upon the spurious premise that "oldest always means best" (a premise which is difficult to swallow when the oldest texts are demonstratably inconsistent both within their manuscript body and with the bulk of extant Greek manuscript tradition at large)¹³. Yes, the weight of antiquity for a reading should be accounted of, but at the same time, this must be balanced with evidence that presents itself from other quarters.

Further, there is evidence from patristic testimony concerning the alteration of manuscripts of the book of I John by some scribes, even specifically mentioning that removal of this very verse. Beginning with a general example of this sort of purposeful corruption of copies of the book of I John, around 485 AD Socrates Scholasticus wrote,

"The fact is, the cause-less alarm he manifested on this subject just exposed his extreme ignorance: for being a man of natural fluency as a speaker, he was considered well educated, but in reality he was disgracefully illiterate. In fact he contemned the drudgery of an accurate examination of the ancient expositors: and, puffed up with his readiness of expression‎!, he did not give his attention to the ancients, but thought himself the greatest of all. Now he was evidently unacquainted with the fact that in the First Catholic epistle of John it was written in the ancient copies, `Every spirit that separates Jesus, is not of God.' The mutilation of this passage is attributable to those who desired to separate the Divine nature from the human economy: or to use the very language of the early interpreters, some persons have corrupted this epistle, aiming at `separating the manhood of Christ from his Deity.' But the humanity is united to the Divinity in the Saviour, so as to constitute not two persons but one only."¹⁴

In the passage above, Socrates is expounding upon the error of the bishop Nestorus, who was accused of teaching that the divinity and humanity of Christ were separated by the economy of His incarnation. The text which he refers to as having been present in "the ancient copies" is I John 4:2-3, and he clearly notes that there were those who initiated textual corruption in this very epistle so as to weaken or eliminate the witness to the deity of Christ. Much the same sort of heretical theology would approve of the removal of a trinitarian reading of I John 5:7-8, a passage which specifically links the Father, the Word, and the Spirit as being in unity.

Even more to the point is the testimony of Jerome on this matter. Jerome was commissioned by Damasus, the bishop of Rome, to prepare a standard Latin translation of the Holy Scriptures to replace the former Latin translation which had grown in multiplicity by the late 4th century. Jerome did this, utilising the Greek as his source for revision of the Latin New Testament for his Vulgate. At one point in his work, Jerome noted that the trinitarian reading of I John 5:7 was being removed from Greek manuscripts which he had come across, a point which he specifically mentions. Speaking of the testimony of these verses he writes,

"Irresponsible translators left out this testimony in the Greek codices."¹⁵

Thus, we see that Jerome specifically mentioned that this verse was being removed from Greek manuscripts in his day. Logically, we can suppose that for him to recognise the absence of this verse as an omission from the Greek texts, he must have been aware of Greek manuscripts which contained the Comma in the time of his preparation of the Vulgate (395-400 AD), a time much earlier than is suggested by the dating of currently known Comma-containing Greek mss.

When we really sit down and think about it, it becomes logically apparent that as far as antiquity is concerned, WITHIN the body of Greek manuscriptual evidence, age is not really that important of a factor. The oldest witness (Sinaiticus) is still almost 300 years after the fact. Further, the oldest witnesses (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Bezae, Alexandrinus, Codex "D05", Ephraemi Rescriptus) are all widely variant from each other and not as trustworthy as they are put forth. When we consider that these texts are in the small minority, and are also grossly variant from the dominant majority of the Greek manuscripts, the Byzantine tradition. The Alexandrian texts are accorded a special status by most textual critics which they do not deserve. Their readings, though often variant and out of step with each other, as well as the older papyri, are looked upon subjectively as the "best" manuscripts without any qualification being given other than that they are "older". This is in spite of their localised nature (Egypt) and evidence of Gnostic and Docetic corruptions. However, The very antiquity of the Alexandrian texts combined with their excellent condition suggest that they were not used by early Christians, likely because of their errors, and thus did not suffer the effects of constant use and reuse, followed by the destruction of ragged manuscripts which was routinely carried out by early Christians as a way of honouring the texts. Further, despite the Alexandrians' antiquity, the texts available which are often older (though in far worse shape), in the form of the various papyri, often show as much if not more affinity for the Byzantine textual type as they do the Alexandrian type exemplified by Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. This again suggests that the Alexandrian textual type, represented by a small minority of the total Greek witness, cannot claim precedence over the Byzantine type, as is generally held.

But what of the lack of this verse in the Byzantine text-type which forms the vast majority of the Greek texts? We must understand that, in the very least, conditions were favourable for the Greek witness to have been altered by Arian heretics in the 4th century who sought to expunge the overt Trinitarian witness of the Comma. We begin by looking to Eusebius of Caesaria, who was the man chosen by Constantine to prepare the "official" copies of the Scriptures which were to be circulated throughout the Empire. Eusebius was likely responsible for the removal of the Comma from the Greek manuscripts which he promulgated for Constantine (Eusebius was in the very least sympathetic to Arianism)¹⁶, which formed the basis for such texts as Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Further, It is very well possible that even the Byzantine tradition was corrupted by the Arian heretics of the East in the 4th-5th centuries, and that the Eastern Emperors such as Constantius who came under the Arian heresy consciously sought to remove the Comma from the witness of the Greek scriptures of the East. This could answer the question why the Comma is missing from the bulk of the Greek manuscript tradition, but yet is evidenced in other traditions such as those of the Old Latin and the Syriac. Likewise, the systematic process of expunging this verse from new copies of this epistle is suggested by Jerome's complaint, mentioned above. Scott observes this possibility when he states,

"...somewhat more likely that the Arians or Anti-Trinitarians [in the early church] should silently omit in their copies a testimony which was so decisive against them, or that it should be left out by the mistake of some ancient transcriber, than that the Trinitarians should directly forge and insert it. The Trinitarian, in fact, would be deprived only of one argument out of very many, with which he might attempt the conviction of his opponent, if this text were wholly regarded as spurious; for his doctrine is supported by other Scriptures: but if this testimony were admitted as the unerring word of GOD; all the ingenuity and diligence of opponents, would scarcely suffice to explain it away, or to avoid the inference, which must naturally be drawn from it."¹⁷

It is patently illegitimate to consider inconsistent Greek codices from the 4th-5th centuries to be of greater weight than the clear and explicit testimony to the verse from patristics such as Tertullian and Cyprian, who quite CLEARLY were referring to this verse in their writings from two centuries before (as will be seen below). While the internal Greek testimony of antiquity may not be all that important for reasons given above, the antiquity of ALL the evidence which we have is, including the text of patristics. Preservation of scripture does not demand that every reading be preserved in the original language of inspiration -- only that the reading be preserved, such as the Comma was in the Old Latin/Vulgate Latin and Waldensian vernaculars which were based off the Old Latin.

What About Erasmus' Promise?

It is not uncommon to find opponents of the Johannine Comma who will uncritically bandy about the claim that Erasmus, a 16th century textual scholar whose Greek New Testament editions were included among the sources of the Received Text and hence the King James, added the Comma to his third edition of 1522 based upon the criticism of certain colleagues. It is said that he was criticised for omitting the Comma from his first two editions, and responded to accusations of heresy by stating that he would include the Comma if even one Greek manuscript could be found which contained the verse. Then, according to legend, the powers that be dashed off a copy of the Greek New Testament, complete with Comma, and brought it to Erasmus with the ink still wet and dripping. He thus included the Comma on this "evidence".

However popular this bedtime story may be with opponents of the Received Text, it has little support in fact. The story has been firmly dismissed by two of the top Erastian scholars in the world. Dr. H.J. de Jong, Dean of Theology at Leiden University, has this to say,

"It has no foundation in Erasmus' work. Consequently it is highly improbable that he included the difficult passage because he considered himself bound by any such promise."¹⁸

Dr. Roland Bainton, of Yale University, has also demonstrated that Erasmus did not include the Comma because of any such promise, but instead he concluded "...the verse was in the Vulgate and must therefore have been in the Greek text used by Jerome."¹⁹ As it turns out, Erasmus was almost assuredly correct in this belief, as will be shown below. Further, this story is even admitted as apocryphal by the standard-bearer of contemporary textual criticism, Bruce Metzger²⁰

One piece of disinformation which has served to bolster the belief that Erasmus relied on little to no Greek manuscript support is the continued misrepresentation of the Greek witness which Erasmus himself said that he used. Modern scholars will claim that Erasmus included the Comma on the basis of the Codex Montfortanius, said to be the hastily prepared Greek codex which was produced to give him the pretext for including the verse. Erasmus states that he included the Comma into his third edition based upon the witness of the Codex Britannicus, a separate Greek codex. Scholars will attempt to equate Britannicus with Montfortanius, but this is not legitimate, as the rendering of I John 5:7-8 in Erasmus' edition is different from that found in Montfortanius²¹. Further, Montfortanius itself could not be the supposed ringer which the Erasmus' Promise myth suggests, as it is dated by scholars such as Adam Clarke to the middle of the 13th century²².

Ultimately, Erasmus himself had access to at least five Greek manuscripts upon which he based his later editions of the Greek New Testament, one of them dating back to the 11th century²³. His successor in this work, Robert Stephens, ultimately had access to 19 Greek manuscripts with which to edit his volumes, and the edition of 1550, which Stephens called the Textus Receptus, became the major source of the King James New Testament translation. On the Continent, Theodore Beza added yet more ancient manuscripts to those used by Stephens, and prepared five editions based upon these added collations. Finally, the Elzevirs in 1624 produced a Greek codex which they also called the Textus Receptus which, despite its more extensive editing and use of more ancient manuscripts than Stephens had access to, was almost completely the same as the Received Text of Stephens, differing only in a few spellings, word order, accent marks, and other minor changes.

The Evidence from Other Versions

Whereas the evidence for the existence of the Johannine Comma in the Greek tradition is weak and the evidence often circumstantial, the same can not be said for the verse in other ancient versions. The trinitarian rendering of I John 5:7-8 finds much firmer attestation in other versions tracing clear back to the middle of the 2nd century.

To begin, we must note the presence of this verse in the Old Latin version. The Old Latin (called such because it predates the Vulgate of Jerome) dates to around the middle of the 2nd century²⁴. As such, the Old Latin version is an important foundation for examination of evidence concerning the Comma. This is recognised because, due to its antiquity, it must necessarily have been translated from "young" Greek manuscripts, i.e. those which had not undergone much transmission, possibly even first generation copies. When speaking of the "Old Latin", it must be understood that the version falls into two broad families, the African and European. Both give evidence of the Comma, but the European is of greater weight due to its greater endurance, which yields more evidence for examination.

The African Old Latin textual tradition exists for us today as little more than quotations in the works of early Latin patristic writers, having been displaced by later Latin editions, primarily the Vulgate. However, this was the Latin version which we find used by such men as Tertullian and Cyprian, both of whom were North African authors who either quote or strongly allude to the Johannine Comma in certain of their writings, as will be examined below in greater detail.

The European branch of the Old Latin yields much more interesting information. We note that, in antiquity, it was viewed by Augustine as being a much purer text than the multiplicity of other Latin texts which abounded and which had necessitated the codification of the Vulgate version. Augustine says of the European, or more specifically, the Italic, texts,

"Now among translations themselves the Italian is to be preferred to the others, for it keeps closer to the words without prejudice to clearness of expression‎!."²⁵

There are not many extant Old Latin manuscripts which contain I John 5. The few that do, however, contain the Comma. Other textual witnesses to this chapter in the Old Latin also support the presence of the Comma. The Speculum, attributed to Augustine, but more likely assignable to the second quarter of the 5th century, which is a collection of Scripture citations containing primarily Old Latin readings, contains the Comma. Likewise, the Fragmenta Monacensia, another fragment of Old Latin readings, contains the comma, located after v. 8. Around the middle of the 4th century, the Spanish bishop Idacius Clarus cites the verse, this also prior to the supposed insertion of the verse by Priscillian. Maynard cites Codex Perpinianus, which has Old Latin readings in Acts and the Catholic Epistles, as more early evidence for the Comma in the Old Latin tradition. This manuscript, itself dating to around 1250 AD, is thought to have been copied from an earlier manuscript dating to the 6th century²⁶. Perpinianus contains several Old Latin readings not found in the Greek Majority or Critical texts, but which are found in the Latin traditions.

Although not directly and fully quoted, the Treatise on Rebaptism, an anonymous Latin work attributed to a 4th century monk named Ursinus, but which likely dates earlier to the third century when the re-baptism controversy was in full bloom in the North African churches, includes language which both alludes to the verse, and suggests the Comma's existence in the earlier Greek. The passage in question appears at the end of the treatise,

"Moreover, I think also that we have not unsuitably set in order the teaching of the Apostle John, who says that "three bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three are one."²⁷

Coxe says regarding this odd juxtaposition of the language from verses 7 and 8,

"It is noteworthy that he quotes the Latin formula, and not that (eij to en eisin) of the Greek. Now, the Latin, repeating (in verse 8) the formula (hi tres unum sunt) which belongs to the dubious protasis, is so far evidence that such a verse existed in the old Greek. It is important that the Latin is not conformed to the received formula of the apodosis, 'the three agree in one.'"²⁸

Essentially, because this Latin treatise repeats in verse 8 the language of verse 7, Coxe is saying that this provides evidence for "these three are one", the signal statement of verse 7, as appearing in the Greek from whence the Latin used it (whether from a Latin manuscript or by in situ translation from Greek to Latin). Essentially, we see the anonymous author of this treatise telescoping verses 7 and 8 together, but he must have known of verse 7 to have obtained the unique language "these three are one".

It is also known that in his revision of the Latin to produce the Vulgate, Jerome, while making much use of the Alexandrian type of Greek manuscripts, he concurrently tried to remain true to the readings of the Old Latin texts²⁹. One would expect from this information, combined with Jerome's explicit statement of corruption concerning the Greek manuscripts of his day due to the removal of the Comma, that it was the Old Latin reading which led to the inclusion of the full I John 5:7 into his Vulgate. Even though we possess no actual copies of the Vulgate from within a century after its production, we can easily surmise both from the aforementioned statement of Jerome (indicating his support for the verse), as well as the secondary witness of several works which cite I John 5:7-8 and which used the Vulgate Latin from during that "missing" century, that the Comma appeared in his original Vulgate edition. Among the appearances that the Comma makes in Latin writers during this period are citations by John Cassian (435 AD), Vigilius Tapensis in his anti-Arian work Contra Varimadum (450 AD), Victor Vitensis (485 AD), the Council of Carthage in its condemnation of the Arian heresy (485 AD), and Fulgentius (527 AD). The Comma continued to be used by later Latin writers who would have been working with the Vulgate before it was recended by Alcuin around 800 AD, such as Cassiodorus (570 AD) and Pseudo-Athanasius (6th century).

Modernistic textual critics will argue that the verse was not found in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was inserted at a later date by early medieval scribes from other Latin versions. The basis for this claim rests primarily upon the fact that the earliest existing Vulgate manuscript (Codex Fuldensis, 546 AD) does not contain the verse. From this, it is extrapolated that it did not exist in Jerome's original revision. This sort of reasoning is utterly astounding. From one manuscript which does not contain the verse, conclusions are drawn about the possible content of the dozens, hundreds, maybe even thousands of other Vulgate manuscripts which might have existed contemporaneously with Fuldensis. And this conclusion is that the verse was not in the Vulgate, even though Jerome himself speaks of the verse being omitted by "irresponsible copyists" (indicating that he himself thought the verse was genuine, as well as in the Greek). Likewise, what of all the Latin authors using the Vulgate between Jerome and the copying of Fuldensis, who cite the verse, such as Cassian, Victor Vitensis, and Fulgentius? Where did they get the verse from? Indeed, where did the Council of Carthage, an official church council which would have been using Jerome's "official" Latin translation, get the verse to cite as evidence against the Arians? If the verse had only recently appeared as a gloss in the margins of a copy of the Scripture owned by a heretic (Priscillian), do we really think it is very likely that the verse would suddenly become accepted as scripture to the point that it is cited by several authors and a council of the churches, all within just a couple of generations of its supposed insertion? The lack of logic of the textual critic's suppositions is mind-boggling.

Indeed, out of the 8000+ extant Vulgate manuscripts, including many of not much lesser antiquity than Fuldensis, only a handful do not contain the Comma. Even naturalistic textual critics admit that 49 out of 50 Vulgate manuscripts have the verse.

Another body of evidence which testifies to the existence of the Comma in the Old Latin is found in the textual tradition passed down through the Waldensians.

The origin of The Waldensians, also known as Vallenses or Vaudois (names meaning "of the valleys"), is a topic which has been the subject of much investigation and dispute. The Waldenses themselves claimed very ancient, even Apostolic, descent. Mitchell relates the belief that the Waldenses originated among the Christians of Rome who were driven out of the city and into the hills by the persecutions of Nero³⁰. Gilly notes the claim made among some of them to descent from the original missionary work of Irenaeus into the Subalpine regions of what are now northern Italy and southeastern France, generally known as the Piedmont³¹. Another tradition suggests the descent of the Waldenses from one Leo, a bishop living in the time of the Emperor Constantine and Pope Sylvester I (314-335 AD). Leo, it is said, broke with the Pope over the growing secularisation of Christianity and the avarice of Sylvester himself, and drew away the churches of the Piedmont region after him³². This claim is also supported by Neander³³. A fourth view, also testifying to the extreme antiquity of the Waldenses, is supported by Faber himself. Faber notes that in the time of Jerome, a deacon named Vigilantius led a sect which was opposed to the veneration of saints and martyrs and to the many other superstitious practices creeping into the faith at that time. Jerome specifically attacked this "heresy" in his Heironymus Adversus Vigilantius, giving some geographic clues as to the location of this sect, which was called the Leonists. Faber notes that Jerome located this group in Northern Italy, "between the waves of the Adriatic and the Alps of King Cottius"³⁴, in other words, the Piedmont. Faber then argues for the connexion of the Leonists with the Waldenses on both geographical grounds and also from the fact that Jerome identifies Vigilantius' place of birth as a town near the Pyrenees named Lugdunum Convenarum³⁵, called also Lyons (not the more famous and northerly Lyons), from whence came the name "Leonists". We should note that Faber's attempt to explain Vigilantius as a Leonist on the basis of his place of origin is not necessary. If indeed the followers of Leo were still around less than 75 years after his time (Vigilantius wrote his treatise against superstitions in 406 AD), then Vigilantius was most likely a member of this sect, or else was closely enough allied to it in thought, if not in fact, to be associated with it by Jerome.

None of these suggestions are necessarily mutually exclusive. That the Christians in Rome would have fled to the hills during the Neroan persecution is certainly plausible, both logically and geographically. Likewise, a different part of the Piedmont, and also Languedoc, could very well have been the object of missionary endeavours instigated by Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons. Likewise, the Leonists as they were called, might very well have been the group standing against corruptions in the faith in the 4th and 5th century. Whatever the origin of the Waldenses, it was almost uniformly understood throughout most of European history that they were an extremely old sect. The Roman Catholic inquisitors in the medieval period testified to its antiquity, men who would normally be expected to assert the newness of the Waldensian doctrines and faith as a means of more easily dismissing it to suppression. However, the Austrian inquisitor of the Diocese of Passau, around 1260 AD, noted the various views concerning their antiquity, and seems to indicate an acceptance of this claim to great age for the Waldensian groups³⁶. He also refers to them as "Leonists", confirm‎!ing that the link between these two groups extends beyond Faber's somewhat roundabout attempt. Likewise, the inquisitor Reinerius (~1250 AD) indicates the commonly-held belief that the Leonists were a sect older than the Manichaeans or Arians (thus putting them back well into the 4th century at least), and that they were said to have existed "from time immemorial"³⁷.

This view of the Waldensians' antiquity is not without its detractors. For example, Neff and Bender say,

"The tempting and romantic theory of apostolic succession from the apostles down to the Anabaptists through successive Old Evangelical groups, which has been very popular with those among Mennonites and Baptists, who feel the need of such an apostolic succession, always include the Waldenses as the last link before the Anabaptists. It has....no basis in fact."³⁸

Other writers echo this sort of view, and accept instead that the Waldensians, both in name and in doctrine, originated from Peter Waldo, a wealthy Lyon merchant who renounced his wealth and preached the way of poverty and humility, beginning around 1170³⁹. While attractive to those who do not wish to accept an extreme age for the Waldenses, this view fails to explain why the inquisitors had to note the common opinion that the Waldenses were of great antiquity, older even than the Arians, and had been around for "time immemorial" (a statement hardly applicable to a group which only existed for eighty years). It is to be noted that most of the more recent scholars writing on the subject of the Waldensians are either Roman Catholics or liberal and compromising in theology, neither of which would be particularly predisposed to accept the view of Waldensian antiquity. However, we have already seen that contemporaries of the Waldensians during the times of the Inquisitions noted the common opinion that the Waldensians were an extremely ancient sect, which would not have been the widespread testimony if they had once recently originated as a distinct group. Further, many of those testifying about the Waldenses, even those who be counted as hostile witnesses, readily admitted the purity and honesty of the lives which the "heretics" led. It is unlikely that a people so noted for their piety and honesty would have been involved in a massive deception to invent for themselves an ancient pedigree.

Moreover, linguistic evidence among the Waldenses has been noted which serves to help confirm‎! the great age of their groups. Raynouard perhaps has the most to say on this matter, having committed the most study to the early language used by the Waldensians and which is represented in the very antiquated The Noble Lesson, a Waldensian theological text dated to around 1100. He states,

"Une langue Romane primitive, idiome intermédiare entre la décomposition de la langue des Romaines et l'établissement d'une nouveau système grammatical: circonstance, qui atteste la haute antiquité de cet idiome dans le pays que ce peuple habitait."

("A primitive Romance language, an idiom intermediary between the breakdown of the language of the Romans and the establishment of a new grammatical system: circumstantially, this attests the high antiquity of this idiom in the country which this people inhabit.")⁴⁰

Isolated in their valleys in the Piedmont and Languedoc, the language which the Waldensians spoke, derived from the Latin which dominated since Roman days, had not changed enough to be considered anything more than merely intermediate between the old Latin and the new vernaculars. We see this intermediary language in use, for instance, in the documents containing the Oaths of Strassburg, a treaty of 842, which cemented the division of the Frankish empire of Charlemagne into three kingdoms, one for each of Charlemagne's sons. Owen notes that the treaty was written in three languages - Latin, Frankish (used in the eastern portion of the empire, approximately today's Germany), and in the lingua romana spoken in the Western portion⁴¹, roughly today's France, Savoy, and the Piedmont, which was intermediary between Latin and the Old French which gradually came into being around the 12th century. Owen also notes that the reason for the lingua romana in the western portion of the empire was that the Frankish invaders had mixed with the local population and gradually become submerged among the predominately Latin-speaking populace. The Franks first began their invasion of Gaul late in the 4th century, and had completed their conquest of the entire region by the beginning of the 6th. Thus, the linguistic evidence seems to indicate that the language of the inhabitants of the Waldensian areas, as shown by their ancient written records, stemmed from a source older than the 1170 given by Catholic scholars as a date for the start of the Waldensian sect. Instead, the Waldensians were thoroughly steeped in a linguistic tradition dating centuries earlier than the time of Peter Waldo.

Indeed, this slowness to change is also seen in the fact that the Waldenses retained the use of the Old Latin text, as opposed to the innovation of Jerome's Vulgate. Among the Waldensians had been used the Old Latin, or "Italick", type of text in their liturgies and services for centuries⁴². Jacobus supports this thesis, stating that the Old Latin Bible was for 900 years the Bible of the Waldenses and other Western Christians who existed at various times outside the Roman Catholic religion⁴³. Hearkening back to the belief that at least some of the Waldensians traced back to the missionary work of Irenaeus, we note that there is some circumstantial evidence to support this. The writings of Irenaeus (who wrote in Greek) are noted for the affinities they sometimes show for the Italic Old Latin readings versus those appearing in the Greek tradition⁴⁴. This suggests that Irenaeus, who would almost certainly have used Latin in his day to day ministrations as Gaul was a Latinised province, was familiar with and used the Old Latin Bible, probably the Italic form. Nolan also confirm‎!s both the antiquity of the "Italick" version likely used by Irenaeus and subsequently passed on to the churches of the Piedmont and southern Gaul, and its sequestration from the later Latin Vulgate appearing out of the apostate church of Rome,

"The author perceived, without any labor of inquiry, that it derives its names from that diocese, which has been termed the Italick, as contra-distinguished from the Roman. This is a supposition, which received a sufficient confirm‎!ation from the fact that the principal copies of that version have been preserved in that diocese, the metropolitan church of which was situated in Milan. The circumstance is at present mentioned, as the author thence formed a hope that some remains of the primitive Italick version might be found in the early translations made by the Waldenses, who were the lineal descendants of the Italick Church; and who have asserted their independence against the usurpations of the Church of Rome, and have ever enjoyed the free use of the Scriptures.

"In the search to which these considerations have led the author, his fondest expectations have been fully realized. It has furnished him with abundant proof on that point to which his inquiry was chiefly directed; as it has supplied him with an unequivocal testimony of a truly apostolical branch of the primitive church, that the celebrated text of the heavenly witnesses [1 John 5:7] was adopted in the version which prevailed in the Latin Church previously to the introduction of the modern Vulgate.⁴⁵

The Waldensian Bibles and manuscripts bear a consistent witness to the existence of the Johannine Comma throughout, this being entirely outside of (and often in studied opposition to) the Vulgate Latin tradition of Roman Catholicism.

Various medieval versions of the New Testament which were based on the Old Latin contain the Comma. On such text is the Tepl codex, a late 14th century Middle High German compilation⁴⁶. The verse appears in the version of the Apostle's Creed used by the Waldenses and Albigenses in the 12th century. The Augsburger manuscript (~1350 AD), the oldest complete New Testament in Middle High German, has the verse, and is unusual in that it says "Son or the Word" in v. 7.⁴⁷.

Though it is often touted that the Comma "does not appear in the Syriac", the Syriac evidence is as yet inconclusive as far as the manuscripts are concerned. It is very misleading to claim that the witness from this version knows nothing of the Comma. The Syriac manuscripts which have been studied and collated, and upon which this claim is ultimately based, constitute a very small total of the witness available to this version. The claim rests on a total of five collations⁴⁸, each utilising only a handful of manuscripts, with the number used across all these standing at around a dozen manuscripts at most. This is certainly not a very exhaustive sampling of the hundreds of available Syriac manuscripts, most of which have not been examined in any detail nor any results from examination being published. Thus, the evidence from the Syriac version of the Bible must be considered inconclusive until the fuller body of evidence is examined.

Even given what *has* been looked at from the Syriac texts so far, we can see that the claim that the Comma "does not appear in the Syriac" is in the very least rendered questionable on the basis of fact. There is evidence that the verse appeared in Syriac readings, and Jacob of Edessa, a Syriac Father, makes a clear reference to the verse around 700 AD⁴⁹. The Syriac edition of Giles Gutbier from Hamburg 1664, produced from the collation of two Syriac manuscripts, contains the verse.

Further, there is evidence from the Armenian version that this verse may have either been found in the Syriac used to translate it in the early 5th century by Sahak Partev, the Catholicos of Armenia, or in the Greek which was used to revise and confirm‎! the Armenian translation by the council of Ephesus in 431. The Comma was quoted in a synod of Sis, held in Armenia in 1303, which seems to be a positive indication of that verse's existence in the Armenian version at that date. Some assert that the Armenian version was revised by the Armenian king Haitho II (1224-1270) according to the Vulgate, but this claim primarily rests upon the fact of the Synod of Sis' quotation, and thus is a claim based upon circular reasoning. Further, it is doubtful that the Latin Vulgate would have had much influence in Armenia, as the Vulgate was confined to Western Catholicism. It is unlikely that the Bible of the Latin invaders (the 4th Crusade resulted in the conquest of Constantinople by the Catholics and the establishment of a Latin Kingdom in Constantinople, 1204-1261) would have been readily accepted by the Eastern Christians, who hated the Latins. The first printed Armenian Bible, impressed at the behest of Bishop Uscan in 1666, contained the verse, and the newest version of the UBS text admits that it is found in some Armenian manuscripts. The first printed Georgian Bible, at Moscow in 1743, also contained the verse as it was derived from the Armenian.

The Evidence of the Patristic Authors

Another charge laid against the authenticity of the Johannine Comma is that it found no use among the early patristic writers of the Church until very late in the game. This is usually coupled with the claim that the verse was "added" by a careless scribe or an "orthodox" writer who wished to strengthen the trinitarian testimony of the Bible and found I John 5 to be a convenient place at which to do so. Typical of the sort of claim put forward by liberal, naturalistic critics and their compromising allies in the Critical Text movement is found below:

"The mention of the threefold witness suggested to Christian students of a later day the Three Persons of the Trinity. And so, some time in the fourth century or toward the end of the third, a Spanish Christian (probably), who wrote in Latin, formed a corresponding sentence: "There are three who bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one." Perhaps he wrote this on the margin of his copy of 1 John and some later copyist thought it was part of the text, but in any case these words were quoted as part of the Latin Bible in Spain at least as early as 380 A.D., on earth being added to v. 8 to balance the insertion. This "gloss" (as such insertions are called) spread, and finally became so universal in Latin-speaking Christianity that it was even translated into Greek and was added to a few very late Greek MSS. From these it found its way into printed editions, and so into the first English versions. But R.V. and A.S.V. rightly omit all mention of it, as it has no claim to be considered John's words."⁵⁰

So the Johannine Comma slipped into the Bible as the result of some careless scribe's glossing of his master's study note? The Spanish bishop in question whom most Critical Text people claim was the first to use the Comma in a written work is Priscillian, a late 4th century Spanish heretic, who quoted the verse in his Liber Apologeticus around 380 AD. Is it really true, however, that the verse did not find use before Priscillian? An examination of the evidence from the patristic writers of the early Church falsifies the anti-Comma claims.

To begin, we must look to Athenagorus, a 2nd-century Greek writer (~177 AD). In his Plea for the Christians, Athenagorus addresses two Roman Emperors, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus, seeking from them toleration for Christians within the Empire. As part of his effort, he lays out for them several key points of doctrine, one of which is view of God as a Trinity consisting of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. While not directly quoting the Comma, Athenagorus' language certainly seems to reflect a knowledge and use of the verse as part of his explanation on the Trinity. In explaining the exact relationship of the Son to the Father, Athenagorus states,

"Nor let any one think it ridiculous that God should have a Son. For though the poets, in their fictions, represent the gods as no better than men, our mode of thinking is not the same as theirs, concerning either God the Father or the Son. But the Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of spirit, the understanding and reason of the Father is the Son of God."⁵¹

His use of the term Logos (Word) to describe the Son, is a uniquely Johannine presentation of Jesus Christ. Likewise is the presentation of the Father and the Son as being one (John 10:30, 17:11,22). And whereas John 10:30 is a very explicit passage demonstrating the unity of the Father and the Son, it doesn't speak to the Trinity. However, Athenagorus continues on to clear this matter up through his statement,

"The Holy Spirit Himself also, which operates in the prophets, we assert to be an effluence of God, flowing from Him, and returning back again like a beam of the sun. Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists?"⁵²

Hence, Athenagorus connects the Father, the Son (whom he had previously referred to as "the Logos", the Word), and the Holy Spirit, stating both their union and their distinction in order. The only portion of Scripture where these two points are juxtaposed in such a manner is I John 5:7. That Athenagorus likely had this verse in mind is suggested by his prior usage of the term "Logos", which is not used in John 10:30, and hence would not likely be the source of this term in connexion with the unity of the Son and the Father.

Though Athenagorus' usage is not definite, we next find a much more definite use of this verse by Tertullian around 200 AD. In his apologetic work Against Praxeas, He makes the statement concerning the Trinity,

"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are one essence, not one Person, as it is said, 'I and my Father are One,' in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number."⁵³

While Tertullian here quotes John 10:30 so as to elucidate the point he makes about the unity of essence, and not of number, among the Persons of the Godhead, his language concerning all three Persons is strikingly particular to that found in I John 5:7. He quotes "these three are", and then clarifies that the "one" is a one of substance and essence, not person. Quite clearly, this is a reference to the Comma. What is important to keep in mind, also, is that Against Praxeas is a work specifically designed to explain and defend the doctrine of the Trinity. Thus, it's use nearly a century and a half before the Trinitarian controversies (during which the supposed silence of the patristics on the verse is said to suggest that they did not know of the verse) to defend the doctrine of the Trinity is remarkable in itself, as it shows that the verse DID find witness and was employed on this very subject.

Some have argued, of course, that Tertullian was not speaking of I John 5:7, because this would upset a great number of Critical presuppositions about the verse. Souter, for instance, notes his opinion that Tertullian's statement is referring to I John 5:8 and the unity is that of the three earthly witnesses⁵⁴. This argument hardly seems plausible, however, since we note that at least two of the three earthly witnesses (the water and the blood) are not persons, and hence are not what Tertullian was referring to when he said that the connexion of the witnesses produces three coherent persons. Further, the earthly witnesses are not said to be one, but to agree in one, again casting grave doubt on the idea that they could be the three who are one in essence of which Tertullian writes. The more logical position is to simply accept that this is in all likelihood a reference to the Comma, and move on.

The reason that Critical Text supporters are so loath to admit that this language used by Tertullian is in fact referring to I John 5:7 is that admitting this would destroy the precarious foundation upon which they've built their theories concerning the "introduction of the Comma into the text". Remember, the typical line is that the comma originated at or around the time of Priscillian (and some claim he IS the source) in 380 AD. To find a patristic writer from 200 AD alluding to the verse would turn this claim on its head (as would the next citation, by Cyprian). More particularly to Tertullian, the reference to this verse gives a serious blow to the claim that this verse did not originally exist in the Old Latin. Tertullian likely had access to the Old Latin manuscripts which were then being promulgated in North Africa. Further, the chance that these manuscripts had been corrupted by his time is much less (being only in existence roughly 30 years) than it was much later when we see Augustine referring to the "multiplicity of Latin witnesses". To find the verse even alluded to by Tertullian indicates that it appeared in the very early Old Latin tradition, and not just the European or Italian, but also the African. Further, from what was the Old Latin translated? From the Greek. Scholars debate whether Tertullian used an Old Latin manuscript, or whether he just read the Greek and translated in situ into Latin. Either way, however, we should see that the testimony for the Comma extended back even to the Greek (whether through direct reading or as it came out in translation) of the late 2nd century. This period of time is also before the so-called Trinitarian controversies, and much of the supposed impetus for the patristics to add the verse as an interpolation is removed, lending increased authenticity to its reading here. Modernistic textual criticism simply cannot accede to any of this, and thus, has to continue to propagate the fantasy that "Tertullian probably didn't quote the verse" even though anyone with their eyes open in either English or in Latin can see that he "probably did".

The next witness for the Comma is Cyprian, another North African bishop, who specifically cites the verse on or around 250 AD. He writes,

"He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. 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.'"⁵⁵

This is a very clear quotation of I John 5:7, using language that superbly demonstrates the existence of that verse, around 130 years before Priscillian cites it. The critic who attempts to challenge the reality of this being a quotation of the Comma is merely allowing their predisposition against the verse to overtake their reasoning faculties. Cyprian also alludes to the unique construction of the Comma in one of his personal letters⁵⁶. Again, some have argued per Facundus (a 6th century African bishop) that Cyprian is referring to the eighth verse in this passage. Again, this makes no sense, as Cyprian explicitly refers to the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, and says that they ARE one. There is no language in this passage either stating that they AGREE in one, nor any that refers to the three earthly witnesses. Scrivener, himself no supporter of the Comma, sums it up when he argues that it makes the most sense to simply accept that this is a reference to the Comma, and leave it at that⁵⁷

The next to rely upon I John 5:7 in his work is Athanasius, the great defender of the orthodox faith in the first half of the fourth century. Athanasius, between 310-340 AD, cites the verse at least three times during his career⁵⁸. Further witness from the 4th century is provided by Idacius Clarus, who cites it around 350 AD⁵⁹

It is only after all of this prior witness that we find Priscillian citing the Comma in I John 5:7, this around 380 AD. So much for the claim that it crept in as a gloss in the text at the end of the 4th century, having first been "discovered" or "invented" by Priscillian.

It is possible that Augustine himself was aware of the verse (~390 AD), due to his interpretive language employed in exegeting I John 5:8. Augustine says,

"I would not have thee mistake that place in the epistle of John the apostle where he saith, "There are three witnesses: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three are one." Lest haply thou say that the Spirit and the water and the blood are diverse substances, and yet it is said, "the three are one:" for this cause I have admonished thee, that thou mistake not the matter. For these are mystical expression‎!s, in which the point always to be considered is, not what the actual things are, but what they denote as signs: since they are signs of things, and what they are in their essence is one thing, what they are in their signification another. If then we understand the things signified, we do find these things to be of one substance. Thus, if we should say, the rock and the water are one, meaning by the Rock, Christ; by the water, the Holy Ghost: who doubts that rock and water are two different substances? yet because Christ and the Holy Spirit are of one and the same nature, therefore when one says, the rock and the water are one, this can be rightly taken in this behalf, that these two things of which the nature is diverse, are signs of other things of which the nature is one. Three things then we know to have issued from the Body of the Lord when He hung upon the tree: first, the spirit: of which it is written, "And He bowed the head and gave up the spirit:" then, as His side was pierced by the spear, "blood and water." Which three things if we look at as they are in themselves, they are in substance several and distinct, and therefore they are not one. But if we will inquire into the things signified I by these, there not unreasonably comes into our thoughts the Trinity itself, which is the One, Only, True, Supreme God, Father and Son and Holy Ghost, of whom it could most truly be said, "There are Three Witnesses, and the Three are One:" so that by the term Spirit we should understand God the Father to be signified; as indeed it was concerning the worshipping of Him that the Lord was speaking, when He said, "God is a Spirit:" by the term, blood, the Son; because "the Word was made flesh:" and by the term water, the Holy Ghost; as, when Jesus spake of the water which He would give to them that thirst, the evangelist saith, "But this said He of the Spirit which they that believed on Him were to receive." Moreover, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are "Witnesses," who that believes the Gospel can doubt, when the Son saith, "I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me, He beareth witness of me." Where, though the Holy Ghost is not mentioned, yet He is not to be thought separated from them. Howbeit neither concerning the Spirit hath He kept silence elsewhere, and that He too is a witness hath been sufficiently and openly shown. For in promising Him He said, "He shall bear witness of me." These are the "Three Witnesses, and the Three are One, because of one substance. But whereas, the signs by which they were signified came forth from the Body of the Lord, herein they figured the Church preaching the Trinity, that it hath one and the same nature: since these Three in threefold manner signified are One, and the Church that preacheth them is the Body of Christ. In this manner then the three things by which they are signified came out from the Body: of the Lord: like as from the Body of the Lord sounded forth the command to "baptize the nations in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." "In the name:" not, In the names: for "these Three are One," and One God is these Three. And if in any other way this depth of mystery which we read in John's epistle can be expounded and understood agreeably with the Catholic faith, which neither confounds nor divides the Trinity, neither believes the substances diverse nor denies that the persons are three, it is on no account to be rejected. For whenever in Holy Scriptures in order to exercise the minds of the faithful any thing is put darkly, it is to be joyfully welcomed if it can be in many ways but not unwisely expounded."⁶⁰

Given the full statement made by Augustine, it is difficult not to see that he knew of the Johannine Comma and was alluding to it during the course of his exposition above. Though it is claimed that Augustine's focus on "the water, the blood, and the spirit" indicates that he did not know of verse 7, this is an unwarranted assumption. His language and construction clearly demonstrates a knowledge of verse 7, as does his repeated reference to these three witnesses being of one substance, something which would not be derivative from the statement about the water, blood, and spirit made in verse 8. Augustine focuses on the things listed in verse 8 because of his exegetical methodology - he appears to be trying to reconcile the witnesses in verse 8 with those in verse 7, and is taking an allegorical approach to doing so. Indeed, it is hard to see from where Augustine could have drawn his allegorical parallelism of the Father with the spirit in verse 8, unless he had verse 7, for verse 6 clearly refers to the Spirit as the person of the Godhead, not a thing, and there is little reason to suppose that Augustine would have confuted the persons of the Father and the Spirit, especially as his whole passage is designed, in part, to argue against those who would confound and unite into one personality the Godhead. Clearly, Augustine has in mind the parallel order of the Father in verse 7 and the spirit (as object) in verse 8.

One last patristic writer, this one a Greek, provides some circumstantial evidence for the Comma being native to the early Greek manuscript tradition. Gregory of Nazianzus, in addressing certain objections from Greek pagans concerning the unity of the Godhead, says this,

"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 has 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...."⁶¹

Though it seems that Gregory does NOT know of the Comma, it is also apparent that he recognises the grammatical error that is present in the text if the Comma is not included. Far from being discovered "lately" by Dabney, the grammatical difficulty for the Critical text supporter in this passage was recognised by a Greek-speaking patristic writer over sixteen centuries ago, though he apparently did not know what to make of it.

The grammatical difficulty which is found in this passage if the Comma is deleted rests on a rule of Greek grammar (as well as in many other languages) which demands gender agreement among parts of a sentence. If the Comma is left in place, the masculine article, participle, and number in the apodosis of verse 7 then agree with the two masculine (Father, Word) and one neuter (Spirit) nouns in the protasis. This agreement is made by means of the principle of attraction, a rule of Greek syntax by which a masculine noun in a series of nouns within the same clause determines, or "attracts" to itself, the gender for the series as a whole. This gender of the clause, usually subordinate, agrees with the predicate of the preceding clause within that sentence. Hence, the two masculine nouns in the protasis force the whole list to take on a de facto masculine gender, which is then in agreement with the masculine predicate in the apodosis. The problem for those who support the deletion of the Comma is that, if the Comma does not appear in the text, then the masculine predicate in the apodosis of verse 7 is mated with the three neuter nouns (water, blood, spirit) found in verse 8 (which then becomes the subordinate clause), a serious grammatical error. The problem disappears with the Comma in place, because not only does verse 7 agree throughout in gender via the attraction principle, but the mating of the three neuter nouns in verse 8 with the masculine TREIS MARTUROUNTES (three witnesses) in verse 8 is then also explained by the attraction principle by, as Dabney says,

"...the fact that the pneuma, the leading noun of this second group, and next to the adjectives, has just had a species of masculiness superinduced upon it by its previous position in the masculine group."⁶²

Hence, this close proximity and the fact that the pneuma is a carryover noun from the previous list of nouns and was made de facto masculine by the Power of Attraction rule in verse 7, cause the nouns in verse 8 to be treated as masculine as well. This all falls apart if the Comma is deleted, as there are no truly masculine nouns from verse 7 directing the attraction phenomenon.

It may reasonably be suggested that the reason Gregory did not know of the Comma directly was because of the efforts by Arians in his time to expunge the verse from the copies of Scripture which either fell into their hands, or were of their own manufacture. As there are no other known grammatical errors in the Greek Gospel and epistles of John, it seems more reasonable to suppose that the existence here of such an egregious grammatical error (one noted by a *GREEK* patristic, remember) is due to the deletion of the relevant portion of the Scripture, rather than an original unique error in John's inspired writing.

Why Did the Orthodox Writers Not Use This Verse in the "Trinitarian Controversies"?

One argument used by Critical Text supporters to suggest that the verse was not found in the Bible prior to the late 4th century rests upon the supposed lack of use of this verse, which should be a clear proof-text for the Trinity, by Christian apologists and other writers during many of the various doctrinal controversies surrounding the nature of the Godhead. The verse, it is said, was not used during the controversies of the 3rd and 4th centuries, but suddenly appears frequently during the Arian controversies of the late 4th and 5th centuries.

This argument comes from a misunderstanding of the various controversies, which are usually just lumped together under the broad term "Trinitarian controversies". The first of the major controversies came in the 3rd century, dealing with the Sabellians. The Sabellians were Monarchianists (also called Patripassianists), who denied the individual personality of the three Persons of the Godhead. There were (and still are) several permutations of their general heresy, but all end up denying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were separate personalities, united in essence and nature, but individual in personality and function. The Sabellians did not deny the three persons of the Trinity, they just denied their individuality, usually saying that the Father IS the Son IS the Spirit, and some also teaching that God revealed Himself as all three, but in a sequential manner, never more than one at a time. Thus, the Sabellian doctrine became one of de facto unitarianism.

As such, the Johannine Comma would not have been useful in dealing with these heretics. Indeed, saying that "these three are one", is something to which the Sabellians would have agreed, though for a different reason than orthodox Trinitarians. Sabellians would just as willingly have cited the Comma to prove their position that the three were one in PERSON, not in essence. As such, there is no reason why any early patristic writer would have been inclined to find the Comma particularly useful against this particular heresy. We note that Tertullian, even at that early period in which he wrote, found it necessary to strenuously emphasise that the unity of the three in one was a unity of essence, not person. This is quite explicable in view of the fact that Tertullian was directing his arguments against Praxeas, who held to Monarchian theology. In general, though, the patristics probably would have been disinclined to rely upon these verses to defend the Orthodox view of the Trinity, as the verses could just as easily be turned back against them and twisted to support the Sabellian heresy.

However, the usefulness of the Comma changed when the churches began dealing with the Arians in the latter part of the 4th century, and we begin to see patristic writers, starting with the great Trinitarian defender Athanasius, using the verse, though there was still the tendency to treat the verse gingerly. In the next two centuries afterwards, we see the patristic writers using the verse in quarrels with the Arians (Fulgentius, Cassiodorus, Victor Vitensis, Virgilius Tapensis, etc.) Of course, as was seen above, even Christian writers of the 3rd century did indeed cite and use the verse, even against heresies dealing with the Trinity.

Conclusions

For centuries, the Johannine Comma has been one of the most hotly disputed portions of the holy Scriptures. Though it has been generally rejected by modern textual critics, I believe that this rejection is unwarranted in light of the full body of evidence. Though barely attested in the Greek witness, there is evidence from several corners which suggest that it was originally contained in this language version, and the conditions in the Greek-speaking regions of the Empire were certainly ripe for an attack to be made upon this clear witness to the Trinity. The evidence for the Comma from other sources than the Greek, such as other versions and the testimony of the patristic writers, demonstrates that the Comma was in existence for far longer than the modernistic textual critics will admit, and that it was more generally accepted by the ancients than today's critics would like to acknowledge. Indeed, there is no solid reason, in my opinion, to accept the Comma as anything less than inspired Scripture. Though there have been evidences which have led to many to reject the Johannine Comma, there is much to commend the Comma to us as authentic, and indeed, its preservation through means other than the Greek witness in no wise disparages or dilutes the principle and doctrine of the preservation of God's Word.

End Notes

(1) - Peake's Commentary on the Bible, eds. M. Black, H.H. Rowley, A.S. Peake, p. 1038
(2) - The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Eds. K.R. Crim, G.A. Buttrick, Vol. IV, p. 711
(3) - The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Eds. K.R. Crim, G.A. Buttrick, Vol. IV, p. 871
(4) - The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, ed. A.C. Myers, p.1020
(5) - D.E. Hiebert, The Epistles of John: An Expositional Commentary, p. 27
(6) - C.C. Ryrie, The Ryrie Study Bible: King James Version, note on I John 5:7-8
(7) - B. Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 647
(8) - The Greek New Testament, 4th Edition, eds. K. Aland, B. Aland, J. Karavidopoulos, and C. Martini
(9) - T. Holland, Crowned With Glory, p. 164
(10) - Discussions of Robert Lewis Dabney, "The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek," Discussions: Evangelical and Theological, Vol. 1, 1891, pp. 350-390. It first appeared in the Southern Presbyterian Review, April 1871
(11) - E. Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, p. 54
(12) - T. Holland, Crowned With Glory, p. 164
(13) - See Burgon, where he states, "The impurity of the Texts exhibited by Codices B and Aleph is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact", in J. Burgon, The Revision Revised, p. 315; see also W. Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text, pp. 126-129
(14) - Socrates Scholasticus, Hist. Eccles, Lib. VII, cap. xxxii
(15) - Jerome, Prologue to the Canonical Epistles
(16) - Eusebius of Caesaria gave refuge to Arius after his depositon by bishop Alexander in 319 AD, later, he drafted a creed for the Arian party at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, "which every term of honour and dignity, except the oneness of substance, was attributed to Our Lord" - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm
(17) - T. Scott, Commentary on the Holy Bible, note on I John 5:7-8
(18) - M. Maynard, A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8, p. 265
(19) - M. Maynard, A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8, p. 252
(20) - B. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, p. 291
(21) - C. Forster, A New Plea for the Authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses, p. 126
(22) - A. Clark, The New Testament: A Commentary and Critical Notes, Vol. 6, p. 928-929
(23) - E.F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, p. 198
(24) - see F.H.A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to New Testament Criticism, Vol. II, pp. 42-43; H.S. Miller, General Biblical Introduction, p. 236
(25) - Augustine, Ad Doctr. Chr., Lib. II, cap. xv
(26) - M. Maynard, in a presentation to the 13th annual meeting of the Dean Burgon Society in 1991, as cited in "In Defence of the Johannine Comma", The Burning Bush, Vol. III, no. 1, Jan. 1997
(27) - Treatise on Re-Baptism, 19
(28) - Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5, ed. A.C. Coxe, Anonymous Treatise on Re-Baptism, TN#61
(29) - F. Kenyon, The Story of the Bible, p.110
(30) - A.W. Mitchell, The Waldenses: Sketches of the Evangelical Christians of the Valleys of the Piedmont, pp. 28-29
(31) - W. Gilly, Waldensian Researches, p. 50
(32) - G.S. Faber, An Inquiry into the History and Theology of the Ancient Vallenses and Albigenses, p. 275
(33) - A. Neander, General History of the Christian Religion and Church, Vol. VIII, p. 352
(34) - G.S. Faber, An Inquiry into the History and Theology of the Ancient Vallenses and Albigenses, p. 293
(35) - from Jerome, Heiro. Adv. Vig., cap. ii
(36) - see W. Preger, Beitrage zur Geschichte der Waldesier, pp. 6-8
(37) - G.S. Faber, An Inquiry into the History and Theology of the Ancient Vallenses and Albigenses, p. 281, 286-287
(38) - C. Neff and H.S. Bender, "Waldenses", Mennonite Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, p. 876
(39) - e.g., G. Audisio, The Waldensian Dissent, p. 10, quoting Bernard Gui's statement on the subject from his De Secta Valdensium
(40) - M. Raynouard, Monumens de la Langue Romane, p. 137
(41) - F. Owen, The Germanic People, p. 114
(42) - P. Allix, Ancient Churches of the Piedmont, p. 37
(43) - M. Jacobus, Roman Catholic and Protestant Bibles Compared, p. 4, 200
(44) - e.g. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer.,Lib. III, cap. xx.4, TN #399 in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, ed. A.C. Coxe, where Irenaeus' quotation from Habakkuk differs both from the Hebrew and from the LXX, most nearly aproximating the Old Latin; also see Lib. IV, cap. ix.2, TN #109, where Irenaeus' quotation of I Cor. 4:4 is incorporated into Phil. 3:12 in a manner remarkably similar to the ancient Italic ms. St. Germain
(45) - F. Nolan, Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, p. xvii-xviii
(46) - J. K. Elliot, "Old Latin MSS in NT Editions," A Survey of Manuscripts Used in Editions of the Greek New Testament, p. 280; also A. Merk lists the Tepl among the Old Latin related codices in his critical edition Novum Testamentum: Graece et Latine
(47) - M. Maynard, in a presentation to the 13th annual meeting of the Dean Burgon Society in 1991, as cited in "In Defence of the Johannine Comma", The Burning Bush, Vol. 3, no. 1, Jan. 1997
(48) - M. Maynard, A History of the Debate Over I John 5:7-8, pp. 15-16
(49) - Jacob of Edessa, On the Holy Mysteries, in The Anchor Bible, ed. R.E. Brown, Epistles of John, p. 778
(50) - The Abingdon Bible Commentary, First John, ed. B.S. Easton, p. 1357
(51) - Athenagorus, Plea for the Christians, cap. x
(52) - Athenagorus, Plea for the Christians, cap. x
(53) - Tertullian, Adv. Prax., cap. xxv
(54) - A. Souter, Tertullian: Against Praxeas, p. 125
(55) - Cyprian, De Unit. Eccl., cap. vi
(56) - Cyprian, Epis. LXXII, Ad Jubaianus, xii
(57) - see F.H.A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the New Testament, Vol. II, p. 405
(58) - The Anchor Bible, ed. R.E. Brown, Epistles of John, p. 782
(59) - J.-P. Migne, Patrilogiae Cursus Completus: Series Latina, vol. 62, col. 359
(60) - Augustine, Contra Maximinium, Lib. II, cap. xxii.3
(61) - Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration XXXII, The Fifth Theological Oration, On the Holy Spirit, xix
(62) - Discussions of Robert Lewis Dabney, "The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek," Discussions: Evangelical and Theological, Vol. 1, 1891, pp. 350-390
geovisit();

http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/1john5n7.html#greek

The following is an excerpt from Dr. Thomas Holland's Crowned With Glory, ©2000, used with permission.

1 John 5:7 (Johannine Comma) - "These Three Are One"

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father,

the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

The passage is called the Johannine Comma and is not

found in the majority of Greek manuscripts. [1]

However, the verse is a wonderful testimony to the Heavenly Trinity and should be maintained in our English versions, not only because of its doctrinal significance but because of the external and internal evidence that testify to its authenticity.

The External Support: Although not found in most Greek manuscripts, the Johannine Comma is found in several. It is contained in 629 (fourteenth century), 61 (sixteenth century), 918 (sixteenth century), 2473 (seventeenth century),

and 2318 (eighteenth century).

It is also in the margins of 221 (tenth century), 635 (eleventh century), 88 (twelveth century), 429 (fourteenth century),

and 636 (fifteenth century). There are about five hundred existing manuscripts of 1 John chapter five that do not contain the Comma. [2] It is clear that the reading found in the Textus Receptus is the minority reading with later textual support from the Greek witnesses. Nevertheless, being a minority reading does not eliminate it as genuine.

The Critical Text considers the reading Iesou (of Jesus)

to be the genuine reading instead of Iesou Christou (of Jesus Christ) in 1 John 1:7. Yet Iesou is the minority reading

with only twenty-four manuscripts supporting it, while four hundred seventy-seven manuscripts support the reading

Iesou Christou found in the Textus Receptus. Likewise, in 1 John  2:20 the minority reading pantes (all) has only

twelve manuscripts supporting it, while the majority reading is panta (all things) has four hundred ninety-one manuscripts. Still, the Critical Text favors the minority reading over the majority in that passage. This is common place throughout the First Epistle of John, and the New Testament as a whole. Therefore, simply because a reading is in the minority

does not eliminate it as being considered original. 

While the Greek textual evidence is weak, the Latin textual evidence for the Comma is extremely strong. It is in the vast majority of the Old Latin manuscripts, which outnumber the Greek manuscripts. Although some doubt if the Comma was a part of Jerome's original Vulgate, the evidence suggests

that it was. Jerome states:

In that place particularly where we read about the unity of the Trinity which is placed in the First Epistle of John, in which also the names of three, i.e. of water, of blood, and of spirit, do they place in their edition and omitting the testimony of the Father; and the Word, and the Spirit in which the catholic faith is especially confirm‎!ed and the single substance of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is confirm‎!ed. [3]

Other church fathers are also known to have quoted the Comma. Although some have questioned if Cyprian (258 AD) knew of the Comma, his citation certainly suggests that

he did. He writes: "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'." [4] Also, there is no doubt that Priscillian (385 AD) cites the Comma:

As John says "and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh, the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus." [5]

Likewise, the anti-Arian work compiled by an unknown writer, the Varimadum (380 AD) states: "And John the Evangelist says, . . . 'And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one'." [6] Additionally, Cassian (435 AD), Cassiodorus (580 AD), and a host of other African and Western bishops in subsequent centuries have cited the Comma. [7] Therefore, we see

that the reading has massive and ancient textual

support apart from the Greek witnesses.

Internal Evidence: The structure of the Comma is certainly Johannine in style. John is noted for referring to Christ as "the Word." If 1 John 5:7 were an interpretation of verse eight, as some have suggested, than we would expect the verse to use "Son" instead of "Word." However, the verse uses the Greek word logos, which is uniquely in the style of John and provides evidence of its genuineness. Also, we find John drawing

parallels between the Trinity and what they testify

 (1 John 4:13-14). Therefore, it comes as no surprise

to find a parallel of witnesses containing groups of three,

 one heavenly and one earthly.

The strongest evidence, however, is found in the Greek text itself. Looking at 1 John 5:8, there are three nouns which, in Greek, stand in the neuter (Spirit, water, and blood). However, they are followed by a participle that is masculine. The Greek phrase here is oi marturountes (who bare witness). Those who know the Greek language understand this to be poor

grammar if left to stand on its own. Even more noticeably,

verse six has the same participle but stands in the neuter (Gk.: to marturoun). Why are three neuter nouns supported with a masculine participle? The answer is found if we include verse seven. There we have two masculine nouns (Father and Son) followed by a neuter noun (Spirit).

The verse also has the Greek masculine participle oi marturountes. With this clause introducing verse eight,

it is very proper for the participle in verse eight to

be masculine, because of the masculine nouns in verse seven. But if verse seven were not there it would become improper Greek grammar.

Even though Gregory of Nazianzus (390 AD) does not

testify to the authenticity of the Comma, he makes mention

of the flawed grammar resulting from its absence. In his Theological Orientations he writes referring to John:

. . . (he has 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 yourselves disclaim in the case of Deity? [8]

It is clear that Gregory recognized the inconsistency with Greek grammar if all we have are verses six and eight without verse seven. Other scholars have recognized the same thing. This was the argument of Robert Dabney of Union Theological Seminary in his book, The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek (1891). Bishop Middleton in his book, Doctrine of the Greek Article, argues that verse seven must be a part of the text according to the Greek structure of the passage. Even in the famous commentary by Matthew Henry, there is a note stating that we must have verse seven if we are to have proper Greek in verse eight. [9]

While the external evidence makes the originality of the Comma possible, the internal evidence makes it very probable. When we consider the providential hand of God and His use of the Traditional Text in the Reformation it is clear that the Comma is authentic.

---

[1] The first and second editions of Erasmus' Greek text did not contain the Comma. It is generally reported that Erasmus promised to include the Comma in his third edition if a single manuscript containing the Comma could be produced. A Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy) forged a Greek text containing it by translating the Comma from the Latin into Greek. Erasmus was then presented with this falsified manuscript and, being faithful to his word, reluctantly included the Comma in the 1522 edition. However, as has now been admitted by Dr. Bruce Metzger, this story is apocryphal (The Text Of The New Testament, 291). Metzger notes that H. J. de Jonge, a respected specialist on Erasmus, has established that there is no evidence of such events occurring. Therefore, opponents of the Comma in light of the historical facts should no longer affirm this report.

[2] Kurt Aland, in connection with Annette Benduhn-Mertz and Gerd Mink, Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments: I. Die Katholischen Briefe Band 1: Das Material (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 1987), 163-166.

[3] Prologue To The Canonical Epistles. The Latin text reads, "si ab interpretibus fideliter in latinum eloquium verterentur nec ambiguitatem legentibus facerent nec trinitatis unitate in prima joannis epistola positum legimus, in qua etiam, trium tantummodo vocabula hoc est aquae, sanguinis et spiritus in ipsa sua editione ponentes et patris verbique ac aspiritus testimoninum omittentes, in quo maxime et fides catholica roboratur, et patris et filii et spirtus sancti una divinitatis substantia comprobatur."

[4] Treatises 1 5:423.

[5] Liber Apologeticus.

[6] Varimadum 90:20-21.

[7] Some other sources include the Speculum (or m of 450 AD), Victor of Vita (489 AD), Victor Vitensis (485 AD), Codex Freisingensis (of 500 AD), Fulgentius (533 AD), Isidore of Seville (636 AD), Codex Pal Legionensis (650 AD), and Jaqub of Edessa (700 AD). Interestingly, it is also found in the edition of the Apostle's Creed used by the Waldenses and Albigensians of the twelfth century.

[8] Fifth Orientation the Holy Spirit.

[9] Actually the 1 John commentary is the work of "Mr. John Reynolds of Shrewsbury," one of the ministers who completed Matthew Henry's commentary, which was left incomplete [only up to the end of Acts] at Henry's death in 1714.

http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_1jo5_7.html

COMPLETE LIST OF NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS THAT VERIFY
1 JOHN 5:7
by Don C. Hewey
                          Copyright © 1998-1999, "1john57.com" of KJV Apologetics. All rights reserved.
 return to main index

Note 1:    1 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." [1]  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." [2]  Furthermore, the omission causes the concluding phrase of verse 8 (and these three agree in one) to contain an unintelligible reference. [3]  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."[4]  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.
Note 2:  14 out of 20 manuscripts that contain Acts 8:37 also contained 1 John5:7.  Acts 8:37 is an extremely crucial verse in regards to salvation of the Eunuch in Acts 8:36-38.   Without Acts 8:37, the Eunuch is getting saved by baptism without first believing in Jesus Christ and contradicts every verse in the bible regarding salvation in Jesus Christ.

Note 3:  Manuscripts with Acts 8:37 but without 1John5:7 are listed as follows:  Codex C --- Ephraemi, fourth century;  Complutensian Polyglott edition; quoted by Irenaeus---Second Century;  P45; Codex K---Cyprius, 9th century, Greek 63

Note 4:  The Holy Trinity---these three being one are easily shown in scripture in the verses of 1 Corinthians 12:3-6.  Jesus is Lord (verse 3) by the Spirit of God, the same Spirit  is also called the Holy Ghost in verse 4.  It is the same Lord (verse 5).  It is the same God (verse 6).  All four verses are in referrence to one church---the body of Jesus Christ.   For a more detailed discussion on these three being One, click here.   Also, our Lord Jesus Christ Himself said "our" and "we" in referrrence to the heavenly witnesses---
John 3:11   Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. 

   DATE OF MANUSCRIPT               NUMBER OF MANUSCRIPT              MANUSCRIPT REFERENCE              VERSE QUOTATION

168 A.D.	Theophilus used the word "trinity" in his letter to Autolycus. Written in Greek.	Theophilus became bishop of Antioch.
177 A.D.	A writing in Greek---Anti-Nicene Fathers	Apologia of Athenagoras presented to Roman emperors.	"Who, then, would not be ashamed to hear men speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their distinction in order."
215 A.D.	(25:1; CC2, 1195)	Tertullian.  Adversus Praxean per RB	"And so the connection of the Father, and the Son, and of the Paraclete makes three cohering  entities, one cohering from the other, which three are one entity" refers to the unity of their substance, not to the oneness of their number.
250 A.D.	The Ante-Nicene Fathers:  Translation of the Writings of the Church Fathers down to A.D. 325	CYPRIAN.  De catholicae ecclesiae unitate. (CSEL 3:215)	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."  NOTE:  Cyprian is regarded as one "who quotes copiously and textually."  Further, the interpolation "In Christo Jesu" does not yet appear.  note:  Cyprian also quoted Acts 8:37
380A.D.	PRISCILLIAN verify here	Liber Apologeticus	As John says "and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus."
385 A.D.	GREGORY OF NAZANZIUS	Theological Orations, His fifth oration was "On the Holy Spirit"
390A.D.	JEROME	prologue to the Canonical Epistles	"si ab interpretibus fideliter in latinum eloquium verterentur nec ambiguitatem legentibus facerent nec trinitatis unitate in prima joannis epistola positum legimus, in qua etiam, trium tantummodo vocabula hoc est aquae, sanguinis et spiritus in ipsa sua editione ponentes et patris verbique ac aspiritus testimoninum omittentes, in quo maxime et fides catholica roboratur, et patris et filii et spirtus sancti una divinitatis substantia comprobatur." note:  this manuscript also included Acts 8:37
450 A.D.	Anchor Bible; Epistle of John, 782	Contra Varimadum 1.5 (CC90,20-21)	"And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, The Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one."
450 A.D.	De divinis Scripturis suie Speculum (A collection of statements and precepts drawn from the Old Latin Bible (both Old and New Testaments). It has been attributed to Augustine, but this is not likely. Aland dates it c. 427. Except in editions associated with the Alands, it is usually cited as m of the Old Latin. In Paul at least, the text seems to be generally more primitive than the European Latin of the bilingual uncials. In the Catholics, it has many links with the text of Priscillian.)	Latin MS, also known as "m"	"and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one."note: this manuscript also included Acts 8:37
484 A.D.	Victor of Vita	Historia persecutionis Africanae prov. 2.82[3.11], CSEL7, 60
485 A.D.	Victor Vitensis	Historia persecutionis Africanae Provinciae 3.11 in PL58, 227C per RB	"there are three which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one."
500 A.D.	Beuron 64 known as "r".  (Sometimes labeled CODEX MONACENSIS)	CODEX FREISINGENSIS	"and the three are one which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, and the Word, and the Holy Spirit and these three are one."
527 A.D.	FULGENTIUS  (Considered, after Amiatinus, the best Vulgate manuscript.   Copied for and corrected by Victor of Capua. Italian text.    The Gospels are in the form of a harmony (probably based on an Old Latin original, and with scattered Old Latin readings). Includes the Epistle to the Laodiceans.)	Responsio contra Arianos (Ad 10, CC 91) RB	"there are three who bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit.  And the three are one being."
527 A.D.	FULGENTIUS	Contra Fabianum (frag. 21.4:  CC 91A, 797)	"There are three who bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Son and the Spirit.  And the three are one being."
527 A.D.	FULGENTIUS	De Trinitate(1.4.1; CC91A 636), per RB	"There are three who bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one being."
pre 550 A.D.	JEROME	prologue to the Catholic Epistles.  "Preserved in the Codex Fuldensis (PL 29, 827-31)." per RB.	Jerome writes in his prologue that the Comma (1John5:7-8) is genuine but has been omitted by unfaithful translators. Click here to read more about this.
570 A.D.	CASSIODORUS	Complexionn. in Epistt. Paulinn.	"Moreover, in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one God."
583 A.D.	CASSIODORUS	In Epistolam S. Joannis ad Parthos. (10.5.1; PL 70, 1373A)	employs "Son" in place of "Word."  NOTE:  Cassiodorus cited the Comma in his commentary.
636 A.D.	ISIDORE of SEVILLE	Testimonia divinae Scripturae 2[PL, 83, 1203C] per RB.	"And there are three which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and the three are one."
650 A.D.	The Leon Palimpsest, also known as "Legionensis" or Beuron 67	CODEX PAL LEGIONENSIS	"and there are three which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, and the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus."
700 A.D.	JAQUB of EDESSA	On the Holy Eucharistic Mysteries, Syriac document	"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."
735 A.D.	The year of the decease of Venerable Bede	manuscript E (also known as Basiliensis), Greek.   Located:  Basel, Switzerland.  Université Bibliothèque	note:  this manuscript also included Acts 8:37
750 A.D.	harl 2 (also known as "z2" or Harleianus)	Latin MS, Beuron 65, Latin Vulgate Bible	all the Epistles (that to the Colossians following 2 Thessalonians and 1 John 5 - Jude crowded onto one leaf.)
850 A.D.	The Ulmensis manuscript or "U"	"Caroline minuscule" hand. Includes Laodiceans. Now in the British Museum.	"Likewise, in heaven there are three, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and the three are one."
913 - 923 A.D.	"leon 1" or Lemovicensis (dated it in the time of Ordogno II (913-923)	Latin MS of the Cathedral of Leon	"is a specimen of the Visigoth miniscule, and contains 1 John 5:7 - 8 in varied form."
930 A.D.	Church of S. Isidore in Leon	Latin MS designated as "leon 2"	1 John 5:7 - 8 is found only in the margin.
988 A.D.	CODEX TOLETANUS or "T"	Latin MS	Note:  also contains Acts 8:37a, 8:37 b, 9:5, 9:6 and 1 John 5:7. Along with cav, the leading representative of the Spanish text. Among the earliest witnesses for "1 John 5:7-8," which it possesses in modified form. Written in a Visigothic hand, it was not new when it was given to the see of Seville in 988.
1120 A.D.	An exposition of the Apostle's Creed	used by the Waldenses and Albigensians	"There are three that bear witness in heaven; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one."
1150 A.D.	CODEX DEMIDOVIANUS	Latin MS	Note: contained also Acts 8:37 and 1 John 5:7 - 8.
1150 A.D.	CODEX COLBERTINUS	written in Languedoc, Old Latin	Same as the Old Latin c of the Gospels. Often cited as Old Latin elsewhere, but the text is vulgate. The two sections are separately bound and in different hands. The Vulgate portion of the text is considered to be French.
1215 A.D.	Acts of the Lateran Council	Latin document	"because there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one."
1250 A.D.	CODEX PERPINIANUS or Latin p or Beuron 54	Latin "p" (Old Latin in 1:1-13:6, 28:16-end. The text is said to be similar to the fourth century writer Gregory of Elvira, and is thought to have been written in northern Spain or southern France. )	"And there are three which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one."  Note:  also contains Acts 8:37 etc.
1303 A.D.	The King of Armenia	Haitho or Haithom, (1224-70)	1 John 5:7 is quoted by a synod held at Sis in Armenia 37 years after the death of Haithom.
1350 A.D.	The Augsburger Bibelhandschrift	(2 Cod 3) German MS New Testament	Unique reading in that it reads neither "son" nor "word" exclusively, but rather "the son or the word."
1350 A.D.	CODEX OTTOBONIANUS (Act. 162)	At the Vatican(Greg 629), formerly known as Act. 162[dated to the 14th century per NA26]	written in Greek
1380 A.D.	Wycliffe Holy Bible	in the earliest English Versions made from the Latin Vulgate by John Wycliffe	"For thre ben that ziuen witnessing in heuen, the Fadir, the Word, or Sone, and the Hooly Goost; and thes thre ben oon.  And thre ben, that ziuen witnessing in erthe, the spirit, watir, and blood; and thes thre ben oon." note:  also contains Acts 8:37
1389 A.D.	TEPL CODEX (Teplensis)	A. Merk lists the Tepl amidst the codices veteris versiones latinae, Old latin MSS, written in Middle High German	Unlike the pre-Lutheran German Bibles, 1John5:7 is not inverted. Proof this is a non -Vulgate reading.  No scholarly work in print has ever acknowledged the Comma in the Tepl.
1400 A.D.	PAUES, ANNA C., Fourteenth Century English Biblical Version	1904, AMS reprint, 1974. Cambridge: University Press. 41	For per bep pre pat beuep wytnesse in hefne, pe Fader, & pe Sone, & pe Holy spiryt; & pese pre bep on.  & per bep pre pat beuep wytnesse in erpe, pe Spyrit, & blod, & watyr: & pese pre bep on.
1456 A.D.	Mazarin Bible	Editio princeps of printed Latin Bibles, Adam Clarke.  C.H. Turner says the terminus ad quem is supplied by a rubicator's note in a copy dated August 24, 1456	Quoniam tres sunt testimonium dant in caelo Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus, et hii tres unum sunt.  Et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra.  Spiritus, aqua, et sanquis, et tres unum sunt
1466 A.D.	[G01]: pre-Lutheran German Bible	Strassburg:  Johann Mentel	Wann drey seind die gebent gezeug auf der erde, der geist, wasser, ond blut, ond dise drey seind ein.  Vnd drey seind die gebent gezeug im himel, der vatter, das wort, ond der heilig geist; ond dise drey seind ein.
1470 A.D.	[G02]: pre-Lutheran German Bible	Strassburg:  H. Eggestein
1475 A.D.	[G03]:  pre-Lutheran German Bible	Augsburg:  Gunther Zainer	wan drey seind die da gebent gezeugknub auff der erde, d'geyst, das wasser, on de blut, ond dise drey seind eins.  Vnd drey seind die da gebent gezeugknub im himel.  Der vatter, das wort, ond der heylig gist ond dise drey seind eyns.  Ob wir auffnemen.
1476 A.D.	[G04]:  pre-Lutheran German Bible	Augsburg:  Gunther Zainer	wan drey sind die da beget gezugknusb auff der erde,d' geyst, das wasser, ond das blut, und dise dry sind eins.  Vn dry sind die da gebent gezugknusz im himel.  Der vatter, das wort, ond der heylig gist ond dise drey seind eyns.  Ob wir auffnemen.
1476 A.D.	[G05]:  pre-Lutheran German Bible	Nuremberg:  Johammes Sensenschmidt & Andreas Frisner, p. xcv.	was dry sind die da gebet gezugknusz off o erde der geyst, das wasser, ond das plut, und dise dry sind eins.  Un dry sind die da gebent gezugknusz im himel Der vatter, das wort, on der heylig geyst, onnd dise dry sind eins.  Ob wir affnemen.
1477 A.D.	[G06]:  pre-Lutheran German Bible	Augsburg:  Gunther Zainer	wan drei seind die do gebent gezeugknub auff d'erd, d'geyst, de wasser on de plut, on dise drei sind eins Un drei seind die do gebent zeugknub i himel.  Der vater de wort on d'heylig geyst.  ond dise drei seind eins.  Ob wir aufneme.
1478 A.D.	[G07]:   Pre-Lutheran low-German Bible	Kolner Bible, Die Neiderdeutschen Bibelfruhdrucke, ed by Gerhard Ising(Berlin:  Akademie-Verlay, 1976, 6:623)	7. wente dre sint de dar gheuen ghetuchnisse in dem hemmel.  de vadeer. dat word, vnde de hillighe gheyst. vnde desse dre sint een.  8. Vnde dre sint de dar gheuen ghetuchnisse vp der erden. de gheyst. dat water. vnde dat bloed. vnde desse dre sint een.
1483 A.D.	[G09]: pre-Lutheran German Bible	Nurember:  Anton Koberger	wan drey sind, Sy da geben gezewgknub auff der erde, der geyst, de wasser, und daz blut, und dise drey sind eins.  Und drey sind die da geben gezewgknub im hymel.  Der vater, das wort, un der heylig geyst, on dise drey seind eins.  Ob wir aufnemen.
1485 A.D.	[G10]:  pre-Lutheran German Bible	Strassburg:  Johann Reinhard de Gruningen	Wann drey seind, die da geben gezewgknub auff der ere, d'geist das wasser, ond das Blut, onnd dise drey seind eins.  Unnd drey sind dye da geben gezewgknub imm hymel.  Der vatter das wort, ond der heilig geist, und dyse drey seind eins, Ob wir auffnemen.
1490 A.D.	[G12]:  pre-Lutheran German Bible	Augsburg:  Johann Schonsperger	wann drey sind, die da geben gezeugknub auff der erde, der geyst, das wasser, onnd auch de blutt, onnd dise drey sind eyns.  Und drey sind die da geben gezeugknub im hymmel.  Der vater, das wortt, onnd der heylige geyst, on dise drey sind eins.  Ob wir auffnemen.
1514 A.D.	Biblia Poliglota biblia Sacra, hebraice, chaldaice et graece, cum tribus interpretationibus latinus	Faks der Ausgabe 1514-1517, Madrid:  University Complutense, 1983-1984.	written in Greek
1520 A.D.	CODEX BRITANNICUS	Taken from the description of Britannicus by Dr. Dobbin, whose source is Erasmus' Apologia ad Jacobum Stunicam	written in Greek

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament(Stuttgart, Germany: United Bible
       Societies, 1994),649.
[2] Robert Dabney, The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek(Edinburgh: Banner of Trust,
       1967),306.
[3] In the Greek, the phrase reads, "oi treiV eiV to en eisin" which literally translates "and these three agree
        to that (aforesaid) One."
[4] Dabney,307

A Free Gift  |  God's Good News  |  There's Only One Way  |  God's Simple Plan  |  Playing Russian Roulette

 
"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."
 Acts 4:12

Johannine Comma - 1 John 5:7-8

A Preliminary Examination of the Antiquity and Authenticity of the Johannine Comma

Does a Clear, Biblical Proof Text Exist for the Doctrine of the Trinity?

Jeffrey Khoo, Ph.D.
(Date Posted: 6-2000)
(Dr. Khoo serves as academic dean and lecturer at Far Eastern Bible College in Singapore.)

1 John 5:7-8 in the King James (Authorized) Version reads, "For there are three that bear record (witness) 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." The italicized words constitute the Johannine Comma (Gk: koptein, "to cut of?). The Comma proves the doctrine of the Holy Trinity that "There are three persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory" (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q 6).

Why is this verse seldom used to teach the doctrine of the Holy Trinity? Other references are often cited, but why not 1 John 5:7f? One will often reply, "How can I when my Bible does not have it?" Therein lies the problem. With 1 John 5:7f missing in so many of the modern Bible versions such as the New International Version, the Revised Standard Version and the New American Standard Bible, it is no wonder that many Christians are ignorant of this verse. And even if they do know that this verse exists, they hesitate to use it because they have been deceived into thinking that it is not part of Gods Word. The NIV Study Bible, for instance, says that 1 John 5:7f "is not found in any Greek manuscript or New Testament translation prior to the 16th century." On account of this they argue that 1 John 5:7 is spurious.

It is not true that 1 John 5:7 is absent in all pre-l6th century Greek manuscripts and New Testament translations. The text is found in eight extant Greek manuscripts, and five of them are dated before the 16th century (Greek miniscules 88, 221, 429, 629, 636). Furthermore, there is abundant support for 1 John 5:7 from the Latin translations. There are at least 8000 extant Latin manuscripts, and many of them contain 1 John 5:7f; the really important ones being the Old Latin, which church fathers such as Tertullian (AD 155-220) and Cyprian (AD 200-258) used. Now, out of the very few Old Latin manuscripts with the fifth chapter of First John, at least four of them contain the Comma. Since these Latin versions were derived from the Greek New Testament, there is reason to believe that 1 John 5:7 has very early Greek attestation, hitherto lost. There is also reason to believe that Jeromes Latin Vulgate (AD 340-420), which contains the Johannine Comma, was translated from an untampered Greek text he had in his possession and that he regarded the Comma to be a genuine part of First John. Jerome in his Prologue to the Canonical Epistles wrote, "Irresponsible translators left out this testimony [i. e., 1 John 5:7f] in the Greek codices." Edward F. Hills concluded, "It was not trickery that was responsible for the inclusion of the Johannine Comma in the Textus Receptus, but the usage of the Latin speaking church."

This leads us to the so-called "promise" of Erasmus. Westcott and Hort advocate Bruce Metzger made this claim, which became the popular argument against the Johannine Comma. He wrote, "Erasmus promised that he would insert the Comma Johanneum, as it is called, in future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a copy was foundor made to order." This view against the authenticity of 1 John 5:7f is parroted by many even today. Is this what truly happened? H. J. de Jonge of the faculty of theology, Leiden University, an authority on Erasmus, says that Metzgers view on Erasmus promise "has no foundation in Erasmus work. Consequently it is highly improbable that he included the difficult passage because he considered himself bound by any such promise." Yale University professor Roland Bainton, another Erasmian expert, agrees with de Jong, furnishing proof from Erasmus own writing that Erasmus inclusion of 1 John 5:7f was not due to a so-called "promise" but the fact that he believed the verse was in the Vulgate and must therefore have been in the Greek text used by Jerome." The Erasmian "promise" is thus a myth!

It has been suggested that the Johannine Comma did not come from the apostle John himself but from an unknown person who invented and inserted it into 1 John 5 so that Christianity would have a clear Trinitarian proof text. Up until this point in time, no one has been able to identify this mysterious person who tried to "help" the church. He is probably a fictional character. In any case, it is highly unlikely that 1 John 5:7f is the work of a well-meaning interpolator. When we look at the text itself, the phrase, "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit," naturally reflects Johannine authorship (cf. John 1:1, 14). An interpolator would rather have used the more familiar and perhaps stronger Trinitarian formula"the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." "The Word" or "The Logos" of 1 John 5:7f points to the apostle John as its source, for it is distinctively John who used the term "the Word" to mean "Christ" in all his writings.

There is nothing in the Johannine Comma that goes against the fundamentals of the Christian faith. It is thoroughly Biblical and theologically accurate in its Trinitarian statement. There is no good reason why we should not regard it as authentic and employ it as the clearest proof-text in the Scripture for the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

(Copied from Foundation Magazine)
 

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Matthew 24:35

 
Navigate Our Entire WebSite

HomePage | Donations to Logos | God's Saving Grace | Logos Timely Articles | The Geneva Bible | The Logos WebStore | Helpful Links | Logos Searchers

 

Click hear for a free literature packet about God's way to eternal life by providing your name and complete mailing address.

Logos Resource Pages

E-mail questions and comments to Pastor

http://logosresourcepages.org/Versions/johannine.htm

http://cafe.daum.net/Eliyahu?t__nil_cafemy=item

[하토브]

제가 삼위일체를 증거하는 구절들로 꼭 언급해야 할 구절 하나를 빠뜨렸네요. 그것은 마태 28장 19절입니다. 아버지와 아들과 성령의 이름으로 침례베풀라고 성경은 가르칩니다. 그런데 아버지와 아들과 성령 앞에 모두 관사가 붙었습니다. 그런 다음, 세분의 이름에 단수를 사용했습니다. 즉 관사가 붙어서 세분의 개체를 기술하는 한편, 이름은 단수로 사용하여 이름이 공용 이름이 되었다는 것입니다. 이것을 삼위일체로밖에는 설명하기 어렵습니다.

[하토브]

계시록 22장 3 하나님과 어린양의 보좌가 그 가운데 있습니다. 하나님이 어린양이라면 왜 그 자리에 두 분이 언급됩니까? 물론 그 두분이 한 보좌를 공유하심이 들어납니다. 이런데서 일체되심을 다시 볼수 있는 것입니다.

[믿음소망사랑]

레마님이 지속적으로 삼위일체론에 관하여 글을 올리는 이유는 자신이 다른 사람보다 더 많이 알고 깨달은 사람이라는 것을 피력하기 위함입니다...레마님의 글을 잘 읽어 보십시오...항상 결론은 내가 너희들보다 많이 알고 깨달은 사람이니 내 말을 들으라는 것이지요...교만이 그의 마음을 사로잡아 소경되게 만들었으며, 뿐만 아니라 다른 형제들과 끊임없이 다툼을 일으킵니다...잠언에 이런 말씀이 있습니다...

거만한 자를 쫓아내면 다툼이 쉬고 싸움과 수욕이 그치느니라(잠언 22:10)

[믿음소망사랑]

레마님을 쫓아내는 것이 이 카페의 형제님들을 보호하는 길이며, 레마님 본인도 허탄한 논쟁을 멈추고 자신을 돌아볼 기회가 될 것입니다....

레마님은 삼위일체를 논할 때가 아니라 자신 속에 뿌리 깊게 박혀 있는 교만함을 발견하고, 회개하셔야 할 때입니다...

[미자아빠]

관전하는 사람에게 유익한 내용이 전달되어짐에 다른곳에선 접할수 없던 깊이를 느낍니다..레마님과 하트브님의 소모적인것이 아니라 서로에게 유익되는 토론이 되기를 바라겠습니다..어떨지라도 두분을 통해서 많은것을 배우게 됩니다..

[하토브]

위의 글들이 우측에서 짤리네요. 미안합니다. 제가 어떤 때는 잘올리다가 어떤 때는 못올리는데 참 아무리 좋은 글이라도 짜증나시겠습니다. 한번 수정해보도록 노력하겠습니다.

원래 이 삼위일체 논쟁을 할려면 엄청 공부 많이 한 사람들이 논하는 것입니다. 그러니까, 이런 논쟁이 나쁘다고 말할 수는 없습니다. 그러나 레마님은 다른 카페들에서 소모적 논쟁이라든지, 독선적이라는 평을 안들으신 곳이 없으리라 생각합니다. 여기서도 마찬가지입니다. 저는 레마님이 여기서 좀 잘 가다듬으시고, 남들에게 기분상하게 마시고 차분히 답하시거나 설명해주시면, 저희가 잘 못알았던 것을 배울수 있지 않겠습니까? 학생들에게도

[하토브]

너희는 마귀의 새끼니, 위선자들이니, 계속하면 학생들이 반발이 심해지지요. 저는 아직까지 위의 증거들에 대한 충분한 반론이나, 여러 역사성에 관련된 질문들에 대한 답변을 충분히 못듣고 있습니다. 혹시 레마님 혼자만 천국에 갈수 있다는 것은 아니겠지요? 물론 레마님과 세르베투스는 갈수 있다는 뜻으로 들립니다만. 그외에 삼두신 안믿고 진짜 하나님 믿는 사람들을 좀 알고 싶습니다.

[하토브]

아무리 해도 우측 끝이 잘리네요. 다움에 문의해야 하겠습니다. 글자 크기를 줄여도 소용없네요.