Johannie comma

On the Trinity thread : poster TMK made a valid point about 1jn 5:7

TMK wrote : ///Even folks I know who are very partial to the KJV have to admit this is an extremely questionable translation of this verse. A quick google search will point to these problems.///

I agree that the Comma Johanneum is one of the most questionable verses in the Bible, it has the
least Greek supportive evidence of any New Testament passage and it is one of the few verses in the KJV that is not found in the majority text,

So the question for me becomes one of how did this verse find it's way into certain of the manuscripts ? Of which I can only think of 4 possible answers

1. it was in the original autographs
2. it mischievously got inserted
3. it accidently got inserted
4. it was Divinely inserted

lets look at some of the evidence for the first possible answer, and if I am permitted, I would like to look at the other possible answers in following post :

1. was it in the original autographs ?

Floyed Nolan Jones Writes :

As to external evidence, we begin by apprising the reader that the Nestle-Aland 26th edition lists 8, not 4, Greek manuscripts as having the section.1 Another is cited by Metzger and the UBS 1st edition bringing the total to nine. Yet even this is incomplete. As of 1997, the
following cursive mss are known to include the passage: 34, 88 (margin), 99, 105, 110, 162, 173, 181, 190, 193, 219, 220, 221, 298, 429, 629 (margin), 635, 636, and 918. In addition, 60 lectionaries contain the reading as do uncials R, F, M, and Q. Thus, the list of Greek mss known
to contain the "Comma" is not long, but it is longer (and growing) than many would have us believe. Though there is a paucity of support for the text in the Greek speaking
East, there are some late versions that include the portion under question such as the first Armenian Bible (1666) which was based primarily on a 1295 mss and the first printed Georgian Bible, published at Moscow in
1743. As to the critics' contention that "the passage is not quoted by any of the Greek Fathers who would have employed it as proof in the Trinitarian controversies had they known of the section", our first reply is that no
such controversy existed. During the first age of the Church, the subjects debated between the Christians and the heretics were over the divinity and the humanity of Christ. The contests maintained with and between
these heretics did not extend beyond the consideration of the second Person ”“ whether the Son possessed one subsistence or two persons instead of two subsistences and one person, etc. They did not assume the form of a Trinitarian controversy, hence no suitable occasion arose to cite the verse in question. Secondly, the early eastern Fathers are silent on nearly everything for the simple reason that their literary works have not survived to the
present. Relevant to this, Harry A. Sturz has made the point "... there are no earlier Antiochian Fathers than Chrysostom (died 407) whose literary remains are extensive enough so that their New Testament quotations may be analyzed as to the type of text they support".
Moorman notes that there is reason to doubt that any serious search has been carried out on the eastern Fathers from Chrysostom forward or on the versions, for since Westcott and Hort a cloud has fallen on the textual
scene and very little attention has been given to I John 5:7.3 Yet crucial to the issue at hand is whether there are any references to the passage prior to 1522, the year it was supposedly added to the Bible by Erasmus.
The favorable Vulgate mss. Although not included in Jerome's original edition, around the year 800 it was taken into the text of the Vulgate from the Old Latin
mss. It was part of the text of a 2nd century Old Latin Bible. The passage is cited by Tertullian (died 220), Cyprian of Carthage (died 258), and Priscillian, a Spanish Christian executed on a charge of heresy in A.D. 385. It is found in "r", a 5th century Old Latin manuscript, and in a confession of faith drawn up by Eugenius, Bishop of Carthage, in 484. After the Vandals over-ran the African provinces, their King (Hunnerich)
summoned the bishops of the African Church and the adjacent isles to deliberate on the doctrine bound within the disputed passage. Between three to four hundred prelates attended the Council at Carthage while
Eugenius, as bishop of that See, drew up the Confession of the orthodox in which the contested 7th verse is expressly quoted. That the entire African Church assembled in council should have concurred in quoting a verse which was not contained in the original text is altogether
inconceivable. Such loudly proclaims that the 7th verse was part of its text from the beginning. The verse was cited by Vigilus of Thapsus (490), Cassiodorus (480-570) of Italy, and Fulgentius of Ruspe in North Africa
(died 533). Moreover, this is not a complete listing. Therefore, early testimony for this key Trinitarian verse does exist.

http://bit.ly/1dJ6lb0

This verse is also in the NKJV, Websters and Youngs Literal Translation. That does not necessarily make it correct, but it's not a KJV only issue.

That said, the doctrine of the trinity does not stand or fall on this one verse. The bible is full of the revelation of the trinity all the way through the OT and the NT and in particular the statements Jesus made about His relationship to the Father and the Holy Spirit. So it really is a non issue as far as this verse goes. In fact this verse in itself does not give the full revelation of the triune God. This comes (as most truths do) from the whole counsel of God as revealed through all His word. One verse in English is not sufficient to explain the depths of the mystery of God's attributes, whether that be the Trinity, omnipresence, omniscience or Love.

I guess if you are committed to believing that the KJV only is inspired and without error, then you will go to great lengths and long reasonings to try to prove your case, but this really is putting your trust and faith in something other than Christ Himself.

Chuck Smith writes of verse 7:

"Now, verse 7 did not appear in any of the early manuscripts. It did not appear the manuscripts until about the tenth century. And so this verse probably was not original in John's writing, because of the fact that it doesn't exist in any early manuscripts that exist before the tenth century. So verse 7 probably should not be here in the scriptures. This is the only verse of which I would declare that in the New Testament. But evidence of it existing in the early manuscripts is non-existent. There is an early church father who quoted from an ancient manuscript, no doubt, in which he quoted this particular passage. Now, what manuscripts he had, we don't know. But there is only one church father that made reference to it, early church father, and so it is generally conceded that this does not belong as a part of the original text. But you should go from verse 6 to verse 8."

I agree with heydave that we do not need 1 John 5:7 to establish the doctrine of the trinity. To desperately cling to a verse that is almost universally accepted as spurious seems to suggest that we DO need it.

Hi Heydave,

Heydave wrote : ///This verse is also in the NKJV, Websters and Youngs Literal Translation. That does not necessarily make it correct, but it's not a KJV only issue.///

I do believe in the superiority of the KJV, but this thread is particularly about the Johannie comma.
Thank you for showing that other translations also include the Johannie comma

Heydave wrote : /// That said, the doctrine of the trinity does not stand or fall on this one verse. ///

If permitted, I would like to discuss this as I write about the four possible options.

I am also open to any other options that I might not have considered. The four that I can think of are:

1. it was in the original autographs
2. it mischievously got inserted
3. it accidently got inserted
4. it was Divinely inserted

Heydave wrote : ///I guess if you are committed to believing that the KJV only is inspired and without error, then you will go to great lengths and long reasonings to try to prove your case, but this really is putting your trust and faith in something other than Christ Himself.///

I will agree that defending any truth, rather it be creation, inspiration or certain understandings of Scripture, can become an idol.

Think of the creationist whom in there great zeal for defending creationism have done great harm for the creationist position. And have created a wrongful sterotype within the minds of many noncreationist.

My faith in the inspiration of the Scriptures was instumental in my laying hold of the truths found within it.

I think Bro Keith Daniels is a wounderful example of a Brother whom has kept Christ himself as the fondation and has not allowed his views of Inspiration and the superiority of the KJV to become his platform.
At the same time he often sows little seeds of faith in the Sovereignty of Gods hand in the disposition of the Scriptures.

Proudpapa,

I appreciate the comments and the grace with which you made them.

Just-in, The article you linked is a very biased heavyweight 'King James Only' position. It is not balanced. They are seeking to prove something they already have decided is right! Even to the point that if the evidence agrees with the KJV, the evidence is right, but if the evidence disagrees with the KJV, the evidence is wrong!??

You can't take that seriously.

1.) Was the Johannie comma in the original autographs ?

We are looking at the first of 4 possabilities and open to discussion of any other possability that I might have not thought of.

1. it was in the original autographs
2. it mischievously got inserted
3. it accidently got inserted
4. it was Divinely inserted

To continue with presenting a defense for the first possability that the Johannie comma was in the originals :

A FEASIBLE EXPLANATION FOR THE OMISSION OF THE "COMMA"
We take our long overdue departure from this much disputed verse by offering the following as a plausible explanation for the omission of I John 5:7 which is taken from the late (1981) Christian text critic, Dr. Edward Freer Hills:
"... during the second and third centuries (between 220 and 270, according to Harnack) the heresy which orthodox Christians were called upon to combat was not Arianism (since this error had not yet arisen), but Sabellianism (... after Sabellius, one of its principal promoters), according to which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were one in the sense that they were identical. Those that advocated this heretical view were called
Patripassians (Father-suffers), because they believed that God the Father, being identical with Christ, suffered and died upon the cross; ... "It is possible, therefore, that the Sabellian heresy brought the Johannine comma into disfavour with orthodox christians. ... And if during the course of the controversy manuscripts were discovered which had lost this reading..., it is easy to see how
the orthodox party would consider these mutillated manuscripts to represent the true text and regard the Johannine comma as a heretical addition. In the Greek-speaking East especially the comma would be unanimously rejected, for there the struggle against Sabellianism was particularly severe. "Thus it is not impossible that during the 3rd century, amid the stress and strain of the Sabellian controversy, the Johannine comma lost its place in the Greek text but was preserved in the Latin texts of Africa and Spain, where the influence of Sabellianism was probably not so great. … it is not impossible that the Johannie comma was one of those few true readings of
the Latin Vulgate not occurring in the Traditional Greek Text but incorporated into the Textus Receptus under the guiding providence of God. In these rare instances God called upon the usage of the Latin-speaking Church to correct the usage of the Greek-speaking Church."....

As the quote from Dr. Hills indicates, shortly after the period in which the Sabellian heresy flourished, Arianism arose. Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria (d. 336 A.D.) and pupil of Lucian of Antioch, denied the deity and eternality of Christ Jesus. The Greek or Eastern Church was
completely given over to that heresy from the reign of Constantine to that of Theodosius the Elder, a span of at least forty years (c.340-381, the convening of the fourth Council of Byzantium). Conversely, the Western Church remained uncorrupted by the Arian heresy during this period. Thus if the "Comma" problem did not develop during the Sabellian controversy as Dr. Hills proposes, it may well have so done during the time of the Arian dominion of the Greek Church as Dr. Frederick Nolan has forcefully propounded. Dr. Nolan argues that with the Arians in
control of the Greek Church for the forty or so year span, Eusebius was able to suppress this passage in the edition that he revised which had the effect of removing the verse from the Greek texts.2 Thus the disputed verse was
originally suppressed, not gradually introduced into the Latin translation.
FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
There remains one more valid and compelling reason for the acceptance of the section under discussion as being genuine. As stated on page 183, the Textus Receptus always has been the New Testament used by the true Church! We have cited Parvis' admission of this conclusively decisive
point and Aland's concession that it undoubtly has been the N.T. of the Church from the Reformation until the mid twentieth century. This is the most important justification why not only this passage, but all of the
passages that would be deleted or altered by the destructive critics should be retained in the confines of Scripture. Finally, it cannot be overly stressed that the successive editors of the TR could have omitted the passage from their editions. The fact that Stephens, Beza, and the Elzevirs retained the Pericope, despite the
reluctance of Erasmus to include it, is not without significance. The learned Lutheran text critic J.A. Bengel also convincingly defended its inclusion2 as did Hills in this century. The hard fact is that, by the providence of God, the Johannie comma obtained and retained a place in
the Textus Receptus. We emphatically declare that the most extreme caution should be exercised in questioning its right to that place. Moorman reminds us that the fate of this passage in the written Word indeed parallels the many times Satan sought to destroy the line through
which Messiah ”“ the Living Word would come.3 We are reminded, for example, of wicked Athaliah, daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, slaying all of the seed royal of the lineage of David ”“ save for Joash! Moreover, this author concurs with Moorman ”“ the passage has the ring
of truth. Like him, we proclaim that it is the Holy Spirit who "guides into all truth" (John 16:13) who has given it that "ring".
http://bit.ly/1dJ6lb0

Proudpapa, having read through the last posting I have to level the same critiscm of it as the one put on by Just-in. I know you are defending a position, but it serves no real purpose in establishing truth. This because it starts from the premise that the KJV is inerrant and therefore this verse MUST be correct. All subsequent reasoning and 'evidence' is only there to back up that position.

Looking at it from the outside, it is very obvious how biased the logic is in these articles. Those who not accept by faith that one particular translation is the only real bible cannot accept the reasonings given.
It would be just as easy for someone who takes the contrary view to paste articles that support their position. No benefit is really served by this.
It is what we see all the time in the church, where a doctrinal position is held and all reading of scripture is interpreted on the premise that it has to fit into what is already held to be true.

Hi Heydave,

Heydave wrote : /// Proudpapa, having read through the last posting I have to level the same critiscm of it as the one put on by Just-in. I know you are defending a position, but it serves no real purpose in establishing truth. This because it starts from the premise that the KJV is inerrant and therefore this verse MUST be correct. All subsequent reasoning and 'evidence' is only there to back up that position. ///

I can understand that, because I kind of feel there is a lack of evidence as to convince the skeptic that it was in the original autographs
.

Having said that, This is not the only topic that I have found myself as the underdog in presenting a convincing case for.
The evolutionist has the upper hand on the creationist but that does not mean that the postion of the creationist is not correct.
But there may be somethings that the creation scientist fails often to take into account such as : God may have created the Earth new but yet already with a fossil record and with the appearance of age.

But having said all of that I am not trying to defend the information that I presented so far.
At this time I am just giving information for the first
of the four possibilities :

1. it was in the original autographs
2. it mischievously got inserted
3. it accidently got inserted
4. it was Divinely inserted

How many early fathers cite this passage without attributing it to John? How many cite it while attributing it to John? It is very difficult to say with certainty that any of the patristic writers cited it as a direct allusion, but almost certain that none are known to cite with attribution to John.

Nevertheless, there is some evidence in the manuscripts, doubtful as it may seem. The best practice, IMO, and one I wish all the publishers would follow, is to include the verse in brackets and footnote the uncertainty.

My personal view? It is not in the original. Furthermore, textually, the comma doesn't fit the argument John makes.

1 John is a chiasm, an odd structure of thought and writing to us but common in Eastern writings. No boring explanations needed or offered, but there are two passages in the letter that "pair up" in the chiastic structure: 1 John 1:5-2:2 and 5:6-11. The first is stated and the second is a support for it. (If you're not familiar with chiastic writing, you can read plenty online about it. It is not easy to follow the train of thought in a chiasm. But, even we use them for effect -- which is exactly why they were used in ancient times. "I'm stuck on Band-Aids cause Band-Aids' stuck on me" is a bad example of a chiasm, but a familiar one. 1 John is more elaborate. The last 5 chapters of Daniel and most of Jeremiah are chiasms.

In any event, 1:5-2:2 say:

"This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light and in him is no darkness at all. if we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

And, in 5:6-11,

"This is he who came by water and blood -- Jesus Christ; not by the water only, but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood: and these three agree. If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son. Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son. And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life and this life is in his Son."

So, the nut of the argument is this: God in Christ Jesus is light and our walk either testifies that God in Christ is true or that God in Christ is a liar. But, it isn't our witness that makes the light of God in Christ "true". It is self-proving for anyone who would reject Jesus. In the Hebrew tradition that the truth be established in the mouth (not the ear, but the mouth) of two or three witnesses, John names them: the Spirit who testifies of Him then and now, the water in which he was baptized (whereupon the Spirit descended upon Him as a dove and the Father spoke audibly) and the blood which He shed as a ransom for the sins of those who would reject Him. All lead to this conclusion or "testimony", as John writes: "that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in His Son."

The insertion of the comma into the flow of John's thought just doesn't fit and, in retrospect, SEEMS like a forced attempt to create an apostolically explicit formulation of the trinity where none was needed. Or, it at least seems like a copyists insertion of a marginal comment.

I could be wrong on the Comma, but this is my own personal opinion.

Proudpapa, I do like how you are honest about your position. I think you have said previously that taking the view that the KJV is inspired is a faith position, which it is.

Your analogy of creation and evolution has some validity, but it is not really the same. We would take take the view of creation by faith because God's word says it and is our foundation faith for truth. However God's word does not say there will be one particular translation (in English) that we should trust. So we have no basis for taking a faith position on the KJV.

I have no problem with the verse being in my bible (NKJV), because it says what I know to be true from the whole testimony of scripture. Alternatively if someone says it probably should not be there, again I have no problem as it does not change anything about the doctrine of the trinity in the rest of scripture. The KJV only people cry 'satanic conspiricy' about such things, but the vast majority of Christians using translations without this verse still hold to the doctrine of the trinity, so I think they are crying 'wolf' just to scare some folk into keeping to their view.

Just-in wrote "Taking any Bible version to be inspired is a faith position, don't you think."

If you mean by version, 'translation' then yes. However my point is that we should not be taking any translation as being perfectly inspired and without the possibility of an alternative word or phrase better expressing what the original author wrote.
Also translations by their very nature need to be updated over the years as some words mean different things today than when first used. Example would be that years ago if someone said they were having a gay day, everyone knew they meant 'happy day', but if someone said that today it would mean something completely different, so you would change your word so you are not misunderstood.

Anyway, coming back to the subject. The problem I see in using these articles is that they cannot even consider the possibility of this verse being a human addition because to do so would mean accepting that the KJV is not inspired. I don't have a view on this verse as I have not studied it to know. I'm open to learn, but I can't accept these biased views that cannot even consider the possibility because of a false premise.

Hi Heydave,

Heydave wrote : /// I think you have said previously that taking the view that the KJV is inspired is a faith position, which it is.///

I agree, it is more of a faith position rather than an intellectual position.

Heydave wrote : ///Your analogy of creation and evolution has some validity, but it is not really the same. We would take take the view of creation by faith because God's word says it and is our foundation faith for truth. However God's word does not say there will be one particular translation (in English) that we should trust. So we have no basis for taking a faith position on the KJV.///

What the Bible does do is reveal to us aspects of its own nature.

My understanding of acts 7:53 seems to me to confirm that the scriptures have been given to us by the disposition, ordination, direction of angels.

As I have written about in past threads : Jesus based theological argument on written words not just general concepts, and as in the case of the debate with the sadducees over the resurrection of the dead, He based that argument on the verb tense difference between (I am) rather than (I was.).
It was not the original autoghraphs that they where reading, It was copies of copies of copies and possibly even a translation apart from the original hebrew similar to that of the greek Septuagint or an Aramaic translation.

Paul tells Timothy that 'All scripture is given by inspiration of God'.
Modern thought often acknowledges what the Scriptures reveal about there own nature but they claim that it only the nature of the original autoghraphs, we must remember the original autoghraphs no longer exist.

But all of the above Scriptures are speaking about copies of copies of copies (not the original autoghraphs) and possibly even a translation similar to the greek Septuagint or an Aramaic translation.

This was a little bit of a rabbit trail off of the thread. I hope to get back on topic, I just wanted to give some quick brief understandings behind my position.

Was the Johannie comma mischievously inserted ?

As I have been researching those people whom have approached the Johannie comma and 1 Tim 3:16 or any other Scripture with a mindset that perhaps such verses have been mischievously inserted. It appears that such a mindset can often open a vacume that has sucked many away from all trustworthiness of the Scriptures and even trustworthiness of God.

'...if even one part of the Bible is thought to be false, how can any of it be trusted ? - Charles Ryrie'

Now admittedly one could take a majority text approach such as Zane Hodges and others, and believe that a few of the minority readings such as the Johannie comma have accidently crept in, and still hold to a foundation of inspiration, and we may look at that some more later on while discussing the third possibility : was it accidently inserted ?

If I where to believe that any Scripture was mischievously inserted, Than I would naturally believe that those men whom delibertly did so where dishonest men,
and if they are dishonest, than I would conclude that there agenda was also dishonest and intended to lead me away from God.

This seems to to be the vacume that has and continues to suck many men such as Isaac Newton, Johann Jakob Wettstein and others away from The trinitarian belief and away from believing in the Diety of Christ.
This train of thought has swept pupils of Bruce Metzger such as Bart Ehrman so far away from the faith as to embrace agnostisism.
This vacume is the tactic that Ehrman uses with his students to destroy there faith in the Bible, in which he boast to have a high persentage of success at.

**duplicate post

To me the word "mischievous" has an element of malice or an intent to do harm such as throwing eggs at a house on Halloween or putting tacks on the teachers chair.

I don't believe that to be the case with 1 John 5:7. While I believe the addition was intentional I don't believe it was mischievous or malicious. I think it was done to add some clarity by a well meaning person.

I think that is true of all of the passages that are disputed as to whether they were in the originals such as the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery or the very last verses in Mark.

I'm not sure how a passage could be "mistakenly" added. Some of the numerical figures in the historical books that don't seem to make sense could have been copyist errors but that is different than the addition of a verse or verses.

Also I am not sure what is meant by "divinely inserted" but if it means what I think it means that may apply to the passage of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery. If it was not in the originals it should have been and God fixed it.