Dustin Smith and the incorrect claims about the JC

Dustin Smith and the incorrect claims about the JC

Before I delve into this study, I first want to make it clear I have no personal issue with Dr . Dustin Smith. In fact, I can say that I respect much of his work. I believe he is a well studied man who has some great context on his podcast.

However, I wish to address some claims that Dr Smith made in one of his podcasts regarding the Johannine Comma, that being the passage of 1 John 5:7 -8. You can listen to the full podcast here.

186 – The Johannine Comma of 1 John 5:7-8 | Biblical Unitarian Podcast (youtube.com)

I also make note, that I fully acknowledge that most of modern scholarship would assert the passage to be an addition to the text and not original.

In the podcast Dustin makes mention of 10 points of the Johannine Comma. We shall look at all 10 points. (the first 2 points are simple claims and not actual evidence against the comma)

I must state that the information I provide here in my argumentation against the claims of Dustin is NOT in any way the full information that could be provided, nor is it meant to be. This would make this long argumentation too long. I would suggest looking at my full writings on this passage. What I present here, is enough to demonstrate the inaccuracies of Dustin’s presentation on his podcast.

1) The passage is an insertion into the text based on a theological reflection of the original passage.

Here Dustin asserts that the passage is an insertion. This is done without providing any evidence at all that it is an insertion, thus the conclusion has already been made that it is an insertion but this is based on the claim, Dustin has begged the question or maybe circular reasoned, I guess it depends how we view the argument. Dustin should have put this point at number 10 after he has provided the evidence.

Dustin does start looking into the evidence at point 3 which we will examine in more detail

 

2) The comma is not trinitarian but a reflection of modalistic theology.

Here Dustin is correct that the passage is not a trinitarian statement, but he is wrong in his assertion that it is modalistic. The passage when understood correctly is actually one of the strongest unitarian passages in the entire Bible. While it is massively misrepresented by trinitarians and non trinitarians alike, it is a wonderful passage that perfectly aligns with the unitarian view as it actually demonstrates that God is singular and that Jesus is the Messiah. This is what the witnesses actually agree on. Not three separate persons.
I would suggest reading my writing on this where I break down 1 John 5 demonstrating the true nature of this passage.

It must also be noted that even if the passage was modalistic this would not be evidence of the passage being inserted into the Bible. All it would show is that rather than being a trinitarian text it would be a modalistic text. The nature of the text and its meaning does not in any way dictate whether or not the text is authentic.  In order to claim it is an inserted text, it would still need to be demonstrated that it was indeed an insertion.

Dustin gives a grammatical argument as to why this is modalistic and not trinitarian with the Greek word for one being neuter and not masculine.

However, the Greek grammar of 1 John 5:7-8 is actually one of the strongest points for the inclusion of the passage. Without 1 John 5:7-8 as it is found in the TR there is actually what is known as a solecism in the text. This was pointed out by Erasmus. It was also noted by Gregory of Nazianzus.In more modern times (18th Century) this was noted by Eugenius Voulgaris who was the Archbishop of Cherson

The argument for this is long so I will not include it here, I will include it at the conclusion to point 10.

 

3) There are only 8 manuscripts that contain the Comma, the earliest of these being from the 15th Century.

Dustin does now start to look at the evidence against the comma, (What you will notice is that the arguments are against the comma, which ignores any evidence FOR the comma. No evidence for the inclusion of the comma is presented, either Dustin is unaware of this evidence or has deliberately kept from presenting it in this podcast. Therefore, Dustin is presenting a one sided argument.

It would seem that Dustin is citing outdated information. There are, in fact, 10 Greek manuscripts that contain the comma, not 8 as he asserts. While this is a small error, it needs to be corrected. Also it is incorrect to state that none of these are prior to the 15th Century.

These manuscripts are as follows:

In the text  (5 manuscripts)

61, Montfortianus from either the 14th or 16th century (depending on who is dating the manuscript) this manuscript was supposedly called Codex Britannicus by Erasmus (I have to say supposedly as some argue that Montfortianus is not the manuscript Erasmus used), (Adam Clarke a 18th-19th Century Biblical scholar) who twice studied and examined the manuscript in person, dated the manuscript to the 13th Century). Adam Clark had no dog in the fight of modern Textual criticism having died before the start of it and thus had no necessity to date the manuscript early for theological (KJV reasons). French theologian David Martin dated the manuscript even earlier as in the 11th Century.

918 from the 16th century, 2473 from the 17th century and 2318 from the 18th century but also we have 629 from the 14th century.

629, codex Ottobonianus, was discovered in the Vatican in the 19th Century by Johann Martin Augustin Scholz. It is dated to the 14th Century not the 15th Century as Dustin Smith stated.

You can see this on the Centre for the study of New testament manuscripts. It was not included in the manuscripts listed by Bruce Metzger

629 (14^th century)(Metzger curiously omits mention of codex 629 [Textual Commentary²]
The Comma Johanneum in an Overlooked Manuscript – The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (csntm.org)

The fact that Metzger left out this manuscript influenced statements made by Dan Wallace regarding the earliest manuscript to contain the comma, which Dan had once asserted was the 16th Century. Dan Wallace acknowledged his error.

Fourth, I would like to make one correction on what was quoted from me above, however. The quotations were accurate, but I was not. First, the oldest MS to have the comma Johanneum in the text is from the 14th century, not the 16th century. I originally based that part of my research on Metzger’s Textual Commentary, but he left out this particular MS!
Wallace on the Comma Johanneum at 1 John 5.7 (thegospelcoalition.org)

Even Wikipedia is aware of the dating of this manuscript

Minuscule 629 (in the Gregory-Aland numbering), α 460 (von Soden),^[1] is a Latin–Greek diglot minuscule manuscript of the New Testament, on parchment. It is known as Codex Ottobonianus. Palaeographically it has been assigned to the 14th century. The manuscript is lacunose.^[2] It is known for the Comma Johanneum.

Minuscule 629 – Wikipedia

This information is very easy to attain and I have to question why the date is incorrectly presented. Even if Dustin could show that the manuscript was dated at 15th century by a scholar or some scholars, in light that this is not the general consensus it is dishonest not to tell his listeners this information, unless Dustin has not checked his source and simply taken the information as factual, this is “lazy” scholarship.

 

In the margin ( 5 manuscripts)

88 Regius 12th century (JC added in the  16th Century, 177 11th Century (JC added late) , this manuscript was only discovered in 2010 by Dan Wallace. 221 10th century (JC Added uncertain, probable 15th Century), 429 14th century (JC added later, Metzger asserts 16th Century), 636 15th century (JC added later, Metzger asserts 16th Century).

It is very difficult to tell exactly when a scribe has added information into the margin so all dates should be taken as approximations. It also should be noted that additions to a manuscript such as margin notes does not necessitate that the passage itself is an addition to 1 John 5:7 only that a scribe has added the text or a margin note to that particular manuscript and that it was not original to that manuscript. Although we must take note of the work of Elijah Hixson who certainly shows that some of these marginal notes are late.

Codex 177.  Dan Wallace discovered that manuscript 177 contained the Comma in the marginal readings back in 2010. It had previously been missed and thus not noted in the NA27. Wallace does assert that this marginal note was no earlier than the second half of the 16th Century but he also assrts it was probably a century or 2 later than this.

There is also a significant updating to the list of MSS that have the comma Johanneum. Up until a few weeks ago, scholars knew of only eight Greek NT MSS that had the comma either in the text (four MSS) or in the margins (four MSS). The earliest textual reading, as I said above, is found in a fourteenth century MS. The marginal readings are found in one 10th century MS, one 11th century MS, and then three later MSS. But the marginal notes are all written by a later hand. If you’ve been counting, you’ll notice that there are nine GNT MSS that have the comma. I discovered the ninth one at the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Munich, in July 2010. This is an 11th century MS, codex 177. Its early Gregory number indicates that it has been known for a long, long time. Yet the marginal reading of the comma has gone unnoticed. I did not see it in the catalogs of the BSB, and it’s not listed in Nestle-Aland27, which does list the other eight MSS. The marginal gloss was added no earlier than the second half of the sixteenth century, and probably a century or two later.
Wallace on the Comma Johanneum at 1 John 5.7 (thegospelcoalition.org)

Codex Montfortianus

Dustin asserts that the manuscript was copied from the Lincoln codex. This was asserted by Bruce Metzger.

It was the first Greek manuscript discovered that contains the Comma Johanneum in 1 John 5:7-8. It was copied from a 10th century manuscript at Lincoln College, Oxford, that did not have the Comma. Comma was inserted from the Latin.
 Bruce M. Metzger, Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, (Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 88, 147.

This is actually debated amongst scholars. Others have asserted that the manuscript was created using numerous manuscripts that date to the 15th Century.

 

Further evidence allows us to date the manuscript quite firmly to the early sixteenth century. An examination of the textual variants in Codex Montfortianus has revealed that it was copied largely from manuscripts written in the second half of the fifteenth century, most of which were only gathered in one place after 1502; these data provide a terminus post quem for the copying of Montfortianus.
1 John 5:7–8, Comma Johanneum, Erasmus, GA 61, Grantley McDonald, Montfortianus page 315 (thesis edition….removed from the published edition).

In the published edition it would seem Grantley is less certain regarding the manuscript

Until the manuscript can be dated more precisely than the current estimate (c. 1500–1520), it is difficult to know for certain whether the scribe intended to influence Erasmus’ editorial choices. But that a recent Greek manuscript containing the comma—one of only two in the world—should have appeared in the homeland of Erasmus’ critic Lee, and should have been presented to Erasmus at the moment when it might make a difference, can certainly be described as a remarkable coincidence.
1 John 5:7–8, Comma Johanneum, Erasmus, GA 61, Grantley McDonald, Montfortianus(p. 33)

This information was cited by Dr Peter Gurry in an online article
Evangelical Textual Criticism: More on Erasmus and Codex Montfortianus

Dr. Peter Gurry did posit his own thoughts regarding the likelihood that Montfortianus was created just to influence Erasmus.

For my take, it still seems like a bit much to copy an entire NT manuscript just to influence Erasmus on one verse. But I certainly can’t say that this couldn’t have been part of the motivation.
Dr. Peter Gurry

It would appear that Dustin has either taken the assertion of Bruce Metzger as factual over other scholarship or is unaware of other scholarship that would oppose this assertion. If Dustin is aware of the other scholarship, he should have let his listeners know that this is not a unanimous consensus by any means.

If Montfortianus was copied from the Lincoln codex  as Bruce Metzger asserted this would actually remove the terminus post quem being 1502 as Mcdolnald has asserted which allows for Montfortiuanus to have a production date much earlier and the terminus post quem would now be anytime after the 10th Century This would make the claim the manuscript was produced in the 16th century much less certain and so the dating by Adam Clarke and even that of David Martin, possible.

The problem that Dustin has here is he is asserting the production date as being the 16th Century which is based on the manuscript being copied from numerous manuscripts prom the 15th century,  but he is also asserting that it was copied from the Lincoln codex which removes the requirement for the manuscript to be  dated to the16th Century, thus it is a self defeating argument. If it is a 16th century manuscript it was almost certainly not copied from the Lincoln codex but rather using numerous manuscripts as Mcdonald has argued.

There is also no evidence that the comma was copied into Montfortianus using Latin manuscripts. As Mcdonald has argued it was copied using Greek manuscripts and even if we take the Lincoln Codex as being the manuscript used as the exemplar for Montfortianus is it simply conjecture that because the codex does not have the comma the passage must have been copied from the Latin and not the Greek. When we actually investigate this claim it becomes more evident that the claim is false.

Codex Montfortianus reads with the genitive ἀπὸ apo meaning from.  This means 1 John 5:7 reads “from heaven”. The Latin reads “in cælo” in heaven.
If this was back translated from the Latin then the use of ἀπὸ apo makes no sense whatsoever. It is not how the Latin translated into Greek would read.
Ottobonianus also reads in this obscure way.

What is interesting is that the 3rd edition of Easmus does not read with ἀπὸ apo but rather with ἑν En meaning in. This is the correct reading of how the Latin would be translated and how all editions after Erasmus’ 3rd edition of the TR read. Erasmus clearly did not copy this from the manuscript. Erasmus either did not use Montfortianus as his exemplar or he changed the text without making note of this in his annotations. The latter is less likely seeing the detailed nature of his annotations.

 

Also we should note that in verse 8 Montfortianus reads ἅγιον agion holy, after the word Spirit  so as reads Holy Spirit.

The text of Erasmus does not include this word.

ὅτι τρεῖς ἐισιν ὁι μαρτυροῦντες ἑν τῷ ὁυρανῷ, πατὴρ, λόγος, καὶ πνεῦμα ἅγιου, καὶ οὗτοι ὁι τρεῖς ἕν ἐισι.

Yet again Erasmus would have had to have changed the text of his exemplar, this time leaving out a word without making any note in his annotations of his doing so.

Even more interesting is that the text of Erasmus includes the words  καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσὶ and these three agree in one at the end of verse 8.  

When we look at Codex Montfortianus at verse 8 it does NOT include the phrase.

For a 3rd time in this passage Erasmus would have changed the text of his exemplar and not made note that the exemplar was in error in any of these places.

Codex Montfortianus also has articles in the text. the Latin does not have articles like the Greek does. If the manuscript was back translated from Latin, then it does not explain why the translator included the articles. Ottobonianus, however, does not have the articles. This makes the text of this manuscript a little more confusing, when we take into account its agreement with Monfortianus regarding “from heaven”. 

These discrepancies between the text of Erasmus and the text of the manuscript that Erasmus supposedly used to produce his 3rd edition need to be addressed and explained.

It is far more likely that these manuscripts were copied from Greek manuscripts that contained the passage than back translated from the Latin.

in 1829 William Alleyn Evanson claimed that Erasmus did not use Codex Montfortianus but rather he used the Complutension polyglot (which we will look at later in this study), or another manuscript Erasmus called Codex Britannicus. 

I am quite convinced that he did not insert the disputed verse, 1 John 5:7 into his 3rd edition of the Greek New Testament. upon the authority of the Codex Montfortianus; but, ether because it was printed in the Complutensian ( Princepts) edition of the New Testament, or because he saw it, (or a Transcript of it), in a Codex which he calles the Codex Britannicus. 
New Criticisms on the celebrated text, 1 John 5:7 Francis Antony Knittel (translated by William Alleyn Evanson (translators preface pages 12 and 13) 1829

It is understood by most of scholarship that Britannicus is Montfortianus. However, when Montfortianus is studied, this assertion is doubtful.

What we should also note, which Dustin Smith does not, is that we actually have very few Greek manuscripts that contain this part of 1 John 5 at all.

Truth is, we have just 4 manuscripts that date before the 6th Century

• 01 (4th century) Sinaiticus
• A (5th century) Alexandrinus
• B (4th century) Vaticanus
• 048 (5th century)

All of these being of the Alexandrian text line. That’s no Greek manuscript attestation for the passage at all until the 4th Century.

In fact, there are only 12 manuscripts that contain this part of 1 John from the first 10 centuries. Unfortunately those arguing against the comma being authentic hardly mention this fact. It makes the lack of early Greek manuscript evidence sound much worse than it actually is.

• 01 (4th century)
• A (5th century)
• B (4th century)
• K (9th century)
• L (8th century)
• P (9th century)
• Ψ (9th century)
• 048 (5th century)
• 049 (9th century)
• 056 (10th century)
• 0142 (10th century)
• 0296 (6th century)

While the comma does not appear until late in the Greek when it comes to this passage  the reality is we have very little existent early Greek manuscript attestation either for or against the Comma. Thus true textual criticism cannot rely on Greek manuscript evidence alone. While Greek manuscript evidence is of vital importance in textual criticism, all evidence must be looked at in order to obtain an honest position. Unfortunately, many people who are not scholars simply regurgitate the saying “it’s not in the oldest Greek manuscripts”, without really understanding what this means.

Codex Vaticanus, the oldest manuscript to contain this portion of 1 John 5, while omitting the passage, has 3 umlauts at this point of the text indicating a known variant.

You can view this at the Vaticanus website Vat.gr.1209 | DigiVatLib page1441

While the scribe who produced this part of Vaticanus did not include the passage, he most certainly was aware of their being a textual variant at this point of the text and so indicated this with the usage of 3 umlauts. This is the ONLY place in this manuscript where 3 dots are used, usually it is 2.
For the sake of honesty I must say that scholars are in debate as to just when these dots were added. Some argue the original scribe added them, others argue that the later scribe who reinked the manuscript did this (the date of the reinking is still in doubt- it could be anywhere from around 10 years to 600 years later). Others say that this was done much much later by someone other than these 2 scribes.

We should also make note that there are actually many variants in 1 John that affect the text. This includes 1 John 5:6

In 1 John 5:6 Vaticanus reads that Jesus came by water and blood.

1 John 5-6 “⁶ ουτος εστιν ο ελθων δι υδατος και αιματος ις χς ουκ εν τω υδατι μονω αλλ εν τω υδατι και εν τω αιματι· και το πνευμα τιν το μαρτυρουν οτι το πνευμα εστιν η αληθεια

Siniaticus and Alexandrinus both read that Jesus came by water, blood and the spirit.

1 John 5:6 “⁶ ουτος εστιν ο ελθων δια υδατος και αιματος και πνς ις χς ουκ εν τω υδατι μονον αλλ εν τω υδατι και τω αιματι και το πνα εστιν το μαρτυρουν οτι το πνα εστιν η αληθεια  – Siniaticus 

1 John 5:6 “⁶ ουτος εστιν ο ελθων δι υδατος και αιματος και πνς ις χς· ουκ εν τω υδατι μονον· αλλα εν τω υδατι και εν τω πνι· και το πνα εστιν το μαρτυρουν· οτι το πνα εστιν η αληθεια  – Alexandrinus 

 

0296 has the spirit before the blood

1 John 5:6  ουτος ε[στι]ν ο ελθων [δι] υδατος και [π]νς· και αιμα[το]ς ις χς· ουκ [εν] τω υδατι – [αιμα]τ[ι] [κ]αι το [πνα] εστιν το [μαρ]τυρουν· οτι το πνα εστι[ν] η αληθεια – 0296

The NIV, ESV, NASB and other modern versions are ALL silent regarding these variants at this point.

To ignore these clear differences between these manuscripts in this verse while using them to disprove 1 John 5:7  is simply dishonest.

So that’s major variants in 1John 5:6 through 1 John 5:8.

 

4) The comma originated in Latin not Greek speaking circles

Before we look at this claim, I shall just make mention that Dustin states that the Greek fathers did not quote the Comma or gives an allusion to the comma in the first 1000 years (we will deal with this a bit later) But he then states that you would see how they would have used it had they known about it when they were arguing with the Arians in the Arian Trinitarian debates.

Dustin has already argued that it is not a trinitarian passage but rather a modalistic passage. Why would trinitarians use a passage deemed modalistic or at least not a verse that proves the trinity in a trinitarian/arian debate? It seems that Dustin wants to argue that it was modalistic but also that trinitarians would have used it has it been authentic. This is a slightly disingenuous argument. There would be no reason for a trinitarian to utilise the passage if it wasn’t a passage that argues for the trinity.

It should also be noted that the likes of Athanasius did not quote Matthew 28:19 in their pro trinitarian arguments. The Greek fathers mainly argued for the unity of the father and son, it was the Latin fathers that used scripture to defend argue for the trinity. It again is slightly dishonest to say a verse is not authentic and original because it is not cited, especially in light of this information presented.

When it comes to the claim that the Comma was not quoted, cited, referenced or alluded to by Greek fathers this is also false.

Knittel stated he was at a loss as to how anyone could affirm this.

“It is frequently said, by those who would dispute the authenticity of this text,”No Greek Author quotes 1 John V. 7.”How anyone can affirm this, I am at a loss to conceive”
New Criticisms on the celebrated text, 1 John 5:7 Francis Antony Knittel (translated by William Alleyn Evanson page 72

 

Clement of Alexandria writing in Greek does give an allusion to the verse, even though he does not use the “word”, rather he uses son, he states that Father, son and Holy spirit being witnesses,  it is only in 1 John 5:7 that we see three referred to as witnesses in scripture.

“By two and three witnesses every word is established. By Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, by whose witness and help the prescribed commandments ought to be kept.”
(Clement of Alexandria. Prophetic Extracts. 13.1; ANF, vol 8)
Greek Πᾶν ῥῆμα ἵσταται ἐπὶ δύο καὶ τριῶν μαρτύρων, ἐπὶ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου
πνεύματος, ἐφ’ ὧν μαρτύρων καὶ βοηθῶν αἱ ἐντολαὶ λεγόμεναι φυλάσσεσθαι ὀφείλουσιν.
(Clement of Alexandria. Eclogae ex Scripturis propheticis. 13.1; Migne Graeca PG 9.703-704)

So does John Chrysostom give an allusion to the passage.

The second part is alluded to by John Chrysostom (in Greek) found in this citation:

● [De Cognitione Dei et in Sancta Theophania] But, O Father, and Word, and Spirit, the triune beingand might and will and power, deem us, who confess you as the unconfused and indivisible substance, also worthy to be the ones standing at your right hand when you come from heaven to judge the world in righteousness, for rightly yours is the glory, honor, and worship, to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, now and for always, and for eternity.”(Chrysostom, About the knowledge of God and the
Holy Theophanies; Translation kjvtoday.com, <www.kjvtoday.com/home/the-father-the-word-and-theholy-ghost-in-1-john-57>)
○ Greek: Ἀλλ’, ὦ Πάτερ, καὶ Λόγε, καὶ Πνεῦμα, ἡ τρισυπόστατος οὐσία, καὶ δύναμις, καὶ
θέλησις, καὶ ἐνέργεια, ἡμᾶς τοὺς ὁμολογοῦντάς σου τὰς ἀσυγχύτους καὶ ἀδιαιρέτους
ὑποστάσεις, ἀξίωσον καὶ τῆς ἐκ δεξιῶν σου στάσεως, ἡνίκα ἔρχῃ ἐξ οὐρανῶν κρῖναι τὴν
οἰκουμένην ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ· ὅτι πρέπει σοι δόξα, τιμὴ καὶ προσκύνησις, τῷ Πατρὶ καὶ τῷ Υἱῷ καὶ
τῷ ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι, νῦν καὶ ἀεὶ, καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. (Chrysostom, De Cognitione Dei
et in Sancta Theophania; Migne Graeca, PG 64.6A)

Origen is another who gives an allusion to the witnesses.

● Scholia on Psalm 122:2 “Behold, as the eyes of servants look unto the hand of their masters, and as the eyes of a maiden unto the hand of her mistress.”The Spirit and the body are servants to their masters (the Father and the Son); the soul is the maiden to her mistress (the Holy Spirit); and the Lord our God is the three [persons], for the three are one. So, the eyes of servants look at the hands of their masters while they issue orders through gestures. It could also be that the hands of the masters,
who are the Father and the Son, are the angels belonging to them both, while the hands of the mistress, who is the Holy Spirit, are the powers that are proper to the Holy Spirit. . (Origenis Selecta in
Psalmos CXXII)
○ Greek: Ἰδοὺ ὡς ὀφθαλμοὶ δούλων εἰς χεῖρας τῶν κυρίων αὐτῶν, ὡς ὀφθαλμοὶ παιδίσκης εἰς
χεῖρας τῆς κυρίας αὐτῆς, οὕτως οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ ἡμῶν πρὸς Κύριον Θεὸν ἡμῶν, ἕως οὖ οἰκτειρήσαι
ἡμᾶς, κ. τ. ἑ. Δοῦλοι κυρίων Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ πνεῦμα καὶ σῶμα· παιδίσκη δὲ κυρίας τοῦ ἁγίου
Πνεύματος ἡ ψυχή. Τὰ δὲ τρία Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν ἐστιν· οἱ γὰρ τρεῖς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. Ὀφθαλμοὶ
γοῦν δούλων εἰς χεῖρας κυρίων ὁρῶντες, ὅτε διὰ χειρῶν νεύοντες κελεύσουσιν. Ἤ χεῖρες κυρίων
μὲν Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ οἱ ἑκατέρου ἄγγελοι· κυρίας δὲ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος αἱ οἰκεῖαι αὐτοῦ
δυνάμεις. (Origenis Selecta in Psalmos CXXII, Migne Graeca, PG 12.1633)

 

Gregory of Nazianzus is another who alludes to the verse citing, the father, word and Holy spirit.

It is simply false to say that Greek fathers were unaware of the passage.

It also ignores the fact that Latin had become the main language of the Roman empire as we have already seen. Many of the Latin fathers were also perfectly competent in Greek.

Dustin also states that it is not in any Syrian, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopian and Slavonic translations before the year 1500.

The Syriac actually gives a “hint” that the comma was in fact part of its text.

In 1 John 5:8 the Syriac reads “ܘܐܝܬܝܗܘ ” “And there are…”

This wording only appears in Bibles where the comma is present.

The Syriac was copied from the Greek that while not containing the wording as in the KJV it clearly had the remnants of the introduction to verse 8 that appears only in those that contain the comma based on there being a cause in the preceding verse.

Here I shall just add the evidence of the comma from Ephrem the Syrian

 

Now, while it is true that the Latin manuscripts do precede the Greek (that we have available to us today). This does not actually demand that the Comma originated in the Latin.

The words are found in around 90% of Latin manuscript that we have that contain this part of 1 John 5. While at the time that the original manuscripts were penned Greek was the “common” language, similar to what English is today, Latin overtook Greek by the 4th Century as the “common” language (Lingua franca) of the Church. It is not surprising then to find Latin manuscript attestation that precedes Greek seeing early Greek manuscripts (especially of this part of 1 John 5:7 are actually scarce. It is vital when it comes to any kind of textual criticism to understand that while on a whole we have a lot of manuscripts for the Bible, the reality is they cover the entire Bible and there are passages, such as 1 John 5:7 where we do not have a lot of manuscript evidence. The manuscripts we have are few in number compared to what would have been available in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and later centuries and it is possible that while we do not have these manuscripts in Greek today, they were available and utilsed by Greek fathers back in the early years of Christianity.  Therefore, Latin manuscripts do, and should be considered to, carry great weight in their attestation to the verse (or any reading). This does not mean that the latin is by itself the authority but it cannot be ignored and should be considered alongside other witnesses and given weight, especially when it has other support such as from church fathers or other translations that are based on something other than the latin.  It is then, completely feasible that the verse was preserved within the Latin despite it having been lost in the Greek. 

Jerome included the comma in his Latin Vulgate in 384 AD. Jerome translated the Latin Vulgate using GREEK manuscripts. Jerome even stated that he used ancient Greek manuscripts during his translation of the Vulgate…..that’s ancient in 384 AD so they must have been very early indeed.

Furthermore, Jerome actually stated that there were scribes REMOVING this section from the Greek manuscripts, omitting the words Father, word and spirit.

“Just as these are properly understood and so translated faithfully by interpreters into Latin without leaving ambiguity for the readers nor [allowing] the variety of genres to conflict, especially in that text where we read the unity of the trinity is placed in the first letter of John, where MUCH ERROR HAS OCCURRED AT THE HANDS OF UNFAITHFUL TRANSLATORS CONTRARY TO THE TRUTH OF FAITH, WHO HAVE KEPT JUST THE THREE WORDS WATER, BLOOD AND SPIRIT IN THIS EDITON OMITTING MENTION OF FATHER, WORD AND SPIRIT in which especially the catholic faith is strengthened and the unity of substance of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is attested.”

 The Prologue to the Canonical Epistles of Jerome

This is something that John Calvin made note of:

“There are three than bear record in heaven” The whole of this verse has been by some omitted. Jerome thinks that this has happened through design rather than through mistake, and that indeed only on the part of the Latins. But as even the Greek copies do not agree, I dare not assert any thing on the subject. Since, however, the passage flows better when this clause is added, and AS I SEE THAT IT IS FOUND IN THE BEST AND MOST APPROVED COPIES, I AM INCLINED TO RECEIVE IT AS THE TRUE READING.”
John Calvin Commentary on the Catholic Epistles

So rather than being added for theological reasons as Dustin asserted, Jerome is very clear that it was being removed for theological reasons. We know scribes added and omitted words within the manuscripts they produced. It should not be an automatic conclusion that words are added. We need to look at the full evidence. Here, the historical attestation is to the removal of the passage, nowhere in any early church historical writings do we find anyone claiming these words were added and not authentic. In fact we have the exact opposite. It is only modern scholarship that asserts this passage was added, contrary to what history says.

 

Socrates of Constantinople, a 5th century Church historian also claimed that 1 John was being corrupted for theological reasons. (although not specifically referring to 1 John 5:7) 

Now in any event, he did not perceive that in the Catholic epistle of John it was written in the ancient copies, ‘Every spirit that severs Jesus is not from God.’  For the removal of this [passage] out the ancient copies are understandably by those who wished to sever the divinity from the human economy.  And thus by the very language of the ancient interpreters, some have corrupted this epistle, aiming at severing the humanity from the divinity.  But the humanity is united to the divinity, and are not two, but one.  Knowing this, the ancients did not hesitate to call Mary ‘Theotokos’. 

Historia ecclesiastica, VII:32

James Snapp Jr who incidentally is not an advocate for the Comma being authentic, does give a postulation as to how the text could have been lost by way of accidental omission.

“In addition, it is possible to explain the early loss of the CJ as a consequence of two simple scribal errors. If a copyist were to copy the longer reading in a narrow column, and transpose the words “εν τη γη” (“on the earth”) so as to appear before the word “τρεις” (three) in verse 8, the text would look like this:

οτι τρεις εισιν
οι μαρτυρουντες
εν τω ουρανω
ο πατηρ ο λογος και
το αγιον πνευμα
και ουτοι οι τρεις
εν εισιν και εν
τη γη τρεις εισιν
οι μαρτυρουντες
το πνευμα και το
υδωρ και το αιμα
και οι τρεις εις το
εν εισιν·

And if a subsequent copyist were to lose his line of sight and jump from the words οι μαρτυρουντες at the end of the second line to the identical words at the end of the ninth line, accidentally skipping the intervening words (in bold print), the resultant text would be:

οτι τρεις εισιν
οι μαρτυρουντες
το πνευμα και το
υδωρ και το αιμα
και οι τρεις εις το
εν εισιν·

which is the text found in almost all Greek manuscripts of First John.
James Snapp Jr TextoftheNewTestament

Anyone familiar with textual criticism will be fully aware of homoeoteleuton (Jumping from one word to another usage of the same word, omitting the words that are found between these two words) . 

We have examples of this in hundreds of manuscripts and passages throughout the Bible. It is one of the most common scribal errors. We must remember all these manuscripts were copied by hand.

 

Codex Fuldensis (Codex F) (541-546 AD) which is the oldest manuscript witness to the vulgate does not contain the verse within the text of 1 John 5. However, the manuscript DOES contain the prologue of Jerome to the Canonical Epistles. In this prologue Jerome makes explicit mention to the heavenly witnesses.  As we have seen, Jerome in the prologue stated that the verse was being removed.

 

Another MAJOR piece of evidence is the confession of faith of The Council of Carthage in the year 484 AD which makes attestation to the words in 1 John.

Council of Carthage 484 – confession of faith

And so, no occasion for uncertainty is left. It is clear that the Holy Spirit is also God and the author of his own will, he who is most clearly shown to be at work in all things and to bestow the gifts of the divine dispensation according to the judgment of his own will, because where it is proclaimed that he distributes graces where he wills, servile condition cannot exist, for servitude is to be understood in what is created, but power and freedom in the Trinity. And so that we may teach the Holy Spirit to be of one divinity with the Father and the Son still more clearly than the light, here is proof from the testimony of John the evangelist. For he says: There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.‘ Surely he does not say ‘three separated by a difference in quality’ or ‘divided by grades which differentiate, so that there is a great distance between them ?’ No, he says that the ‘three are one.’ But so that the single divinity which the Holy Spirit has with the Father and the Son might be demonstrated still more in the creation of all things, you have in the book of Job the Holy Spirit as a creator: ‘It is the divine Spirit
(page 56)

The importance of this council in regards to the support of 1 John 5:7 being authentic should not be underestimated. This council was attended by 460 Bishops from all over the Empire, including from Africa, Greece and Rome. This then is not a single witness, but rather a mass witness from the heads of the churches in unison to the verse. The council was held in response to the Arian Vandal invasion (a detailed study of this should be engaged in for anyone wanting a more in depth understanding of the purpose of this council and the invasion by the vandals) .  The Arian vandals, had invaded North Africa in 429 AD and had been allowed to settle because the Roman army was unable to defeat them, this being 435 AD. In 439 AD the vandals continued their push into Africa. The vandals were torturing and killing anyone that did not convert to Arianism, the King, Hunneric,  challenged the trinitarians to defend their belief regarding homoousian. A confession of faith was produced by the 460 Bishops and then presented to Hunneric, King of the Vandals. Had this verse been added by the Bishops then they would have faced almost certain death by the Arians for corrupting the Bible in their argument for their belief. It is clear that the Bible that the Arians were using also contained the comma.  It simply would have not been possible to cite a verse that was not deemed scripture as evidence for their belief without this being noticed by the opposing side. Thus, it is very clear that they used a verse as support that must have also been known and accepted as scripture by the Arian vandals.

Victor Vitensis, an African Bishop was an eye witness to the events and was also at the council, he records the details in his work Historia persecutionis Africanae Provinciae, temporibus Genserici et Hunirici regum Wandalorum (A History of the African Province Persecution, in the Times of Genseric and Huneric, the Kings of the Vandals) In which he records in detail the terrible torture techniques of the vandals.

This attestation to the verse (which would have come from the Latin Vulgate, attests to undeniable proof of the inclusion of the verse in the Vulgate. There is simply no way that these Bishops would have utilised the verse in the confession of faith if the verse was not 100% accepted as scripture and part of the Latin Vulgate text, uncontested as authoritative scripture by those Bishops and by the opposition.

 

5) The comma only appears in 7 Latin manuscripts

19th century textual critic F.H.A. Scrivener stated that the comma was found in 49 out of 50 Vulgate manuscripts.

“49 out of 50 [Vulgate] manuscripts testify to this disputed Comma”
^{(F. H. A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the New Testament Textual Criticism, 4th Ed., Vol. 2, (New York: George Bell & Sons, 1894), p. 403).}

Here I shall note some of the Latin manuscripts that contain the comma (more than 7)

• Codex Toletanus (8th century)
• The Speculum (5th century)
• León palimpsest (7th Century)
• Frisingensia Fragmenta(7th Century)
•  Codex Freisingensis (6th Century)
• Codex Cavensis (9th century)
• Codex Complutensis (10th century)
• Codex Emilianensis (10th century)
• Codex Theodulfianus (8th–9th century)
• Codex Demidovianus (11th century)
• Codex Sangallensis 63 (9th century)
• Codex Vallicellianus (9th century)
• Codex L (9th century) – Also referred to as Codex Legionensis.

The Old Latin text goes back to the 2nd Century Ad which predates any manuscript evidence that we have. The verse is clearly part of the old Latin text so demonstrates that the comma existed at that time. 

The comma appears in the Wycliffe Bible of 1382 translated from the Latin Vulgate

1 John 5:7 For thre ben, that yyuen witnessing in heuene, the Fadir, the Sone, and the Hooli Goost; and these thre ben oon. 8 `And thre ben, that yyuen witnessing in erthe, the spirit, water, and blood; and these thre ben oon.

The inclusion of the confession of faith at the council of Carthage is impossible to ignore as evidence for the inclusion in the Latin.

 

6) The Comma first appears with Priscillian in the 4th Century

 

This is simply false. Cyprian is the first to reference the Comma and he wrote in the 3rd Century. Cyprian, most certainly knew Greek. He was also aware that Greek was the original language. It is thus very unlikely that he would have quoted a passage that was not contained in the original language.

Cyprian of Carthage (c. 250 A.D). —
“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’” (De Unitate Ecclesiae, [On The Unity of the Church], The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Church Fathers Down to A.D.325).
CHURCH FATHERS: Treatise 1 (Cyprian of Carthage) (newadvent.org)

Cyprian quoted from both John 10:30 and 1 John 5:7. It is ONLY in 1 John 5:7 that we find the words “and these three are one” in relation to the father “son” and Holy Spirit. He also clearly uses  “scriptum est” – it is written. 

Many people do try to argue against the quote of Cyprian here, but they do so contrary to the actual evidence, it is clear that it is argued against simply because of a pre conceived belief the passage did not yet exist, and so of course Cyprian could not quote it. This is a clear example of not listening to the evidence but rather trying to explain away the evidence based on the preconceived belief.

Cyprian is recorded as a witness to the comma in the UBS 4th edition.

UBS Greek NT (4th ed.) notes that the “comma” is attested by the Latin church fathers Cyprian (d. 258), Pseudo-Cyprian (4th century), Priscillian (d. 385), the Speculum (5th century), Varimadum (UBS date “445/480”), Pseudo-Vigilius (4th or 5th century), and Fulgentius (d. 533), as well as a few manuscripts.

 

Tertullian gives us an allusion to the verse. In “On Baptism”, Tertullian references the 3 witnesses, while the father, son and holy spirit are all mentioned in Matthew 28:19 regarding baptism, the reference of 3 witnesses is found in 1 John 5:7-8. Tertullian almost certainly knew Greek and so just as Cyprian he would unlikely have used a verse not present in the original language.

Not that in the waters we obtain the Holy Spirit; but in the water, under (the witness of) the angel, we are cleansed, and prepared for the Holy Spirit. In this case also a type has preceded; for thus was John beforehand the Lord’s forerunner, preparing His ways. Luke 1:76 Thus, too, does the angel, the witness of baptism, make the paths straight for the Holy Spirit, who is about to come upon us, by the washing away of sins, which faith, sealed in (the name of) the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, obtains. For if in the mouth of three witnesses every word shall stand: — while, through the benediction, we have the same (three) as witnesses of our faith whom we have as sureties of our salvation too — how much more does the number of the divine names suffice for the assurance of our hope likewise! Moreover, after the pledging both of the attestation of faith and the promise of salvation under three witnesses, there is added, of necessity, mention of the Church; inasmuch as, wherever there are three, (that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,) there is the Church, which is a body of three.

On Baptism VI

 

Possible Allusion by Hippolytus end of 2nd Century -early 3rd Century

[Against the Heresy of One Noetus] Many other passages, or rather all of them, attest the truth. A man, therefore, even though he will it not, is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God, who, being God, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject, Himself excepted, and the Holy Spirit; and that these, therefore, are three. If he wants to learn how it is shown that God is one, let him understand that this is one Power.[dunamis]. And with regard to his Power [dunamis] He is one God, yet with regard to his manifestation [oikonomia] He appears as three, as will be shown later, as delivered to us in the Word of Truth. Therefore, brethren, these things we have said are shown to our agreement [??]. For it is one God whom we must believe, uncreated [agenetos], inviolable [apathesm], immortal [athanatos], making all things as He wants it, the way He wants it, when He wants it. What then will Noetus dare after these things, who understands not the truth? Therefore, since Noetus is already overthrown, let us come to exhibiting the truth, so that we may stand in truth together; so that they who made all these many heresies may never be said to have power. There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them. (Hippolytus. Against the Heresy of One Noetus. ANF, 1995, vol 5, p. 225-226; Migne Graeca PG 10, 816)

Athanasias is yet another who refers to the three are one.

Likewise isn’t it the remission of sins procured by that
quickening and sanctifying ablution [baptism], without which no man shall see the kingdom of heaven, [a baptism] given to the faithful in the thrice-blessed name? And besides all these, John says:”And the three are the one”
Athanasias

 

7) The Comma was not included in the earliest versions of Ersusmus’ Greek New Testament.

This is very true. Erasmus produced 5 editions of the Textus Receptus and the Comma was not included in the first 2 editions. He did not include the Comma until his 3rd edition.

Dustin refers to the complutensian Polyglot that contained the Comma. Unfortunately he does not mention that the translators used GREEK manuscripts that contained the Comma that were not utilised by Erasmus. The comma was not included in the Complutensian Polyglot Bible because it appeared in the Latin as Dustin seems to assert.

I shall post the information from my main writing on 1 John 5:7.

Complutensian Polyglot Bible

Another important witness to the Comma comes to us in the form of the Complutensian Polyglot. The comma was included in the Complutensian Polyglot in Greek published by Complutense University in Alcalá de Henares, Spain in 1514. This was prior to Erasmus and his inclusion of the verse in his 3rd edition of the TR.  Cardinal Ximenes oversaw the translation done by 42 Spanish Scholars that used Greek manuscripts that are believed to have come from the Vatican Library.  The manuscripts used for this Bible are no longer known to us and it is believed that some were lost and some were hidden, never returned to the Vatican Library.

Cardinal Ximenes stated that the Greek manuscripts were provided by Pope Leo X from the Vatican Library.

For Greek copies indeed we are indebted to [Pope Leo X], who sent us most kindly from the Apostolic Library very ancient codices, both of the Old and New Testament, which have aided us in this undertaking.’” (cited by Metzger, Text of the New Testament, p. 97; emphasis added.
Daryl R. Coates, That Rascal Erasmus, page 5.

Thus, there were Greek manuscripts in existence that contained the verse that were not utilised by Erasmus. We do not have these manuscripts today.

Dustin states that Erasmus did not include the Comma because it was not found in any Greek manuscript. this is simply false, as the inclusion in the Complutensian Polyglot proves. Also Dustin has show himself that the Comma was included in manuscripts (he asserts the earliest is 15th Century….but even this is prior to Erasmus. So to say that it wasn’t in any Greek manuscript is wrong. It was not present in any Greek manuscript that was available to Erasmus at the time he produced his first 2 editions of the TR. Erasmus did have limited access to manuscripts at the time he produced these 2 editions. But this does not mean that manuscripts did not have the Comma, only those that he was using at the time.

 

Point 8) Erasmus was given a doctored manuscript with the Comma contained in it.

This again asserts that the manuscript was indeed doctored, as we have already seen this is based on the claim that the manuscript was produced in the 16th Century and was copied from the Lincoln Codex and was made specifically for Erasmus to use. This as we have seen is very debateable. Again Dustin makes the claim that the Comma was translated from the Latin Vulgate and inserted into the manuscript. These are claims. They are not evidence for the claim.

Dustin states that Erasmus had to “reluctantly” include the Comma in his 3rd Edition. this is a baseless claim. There is NO evidence this was done reluctantly, in fact as we know, Erasmus edited his TR 2 more times after his 3rd edition. Erasmus utilised many more manuscripts in his later editions. Had Erasmus felt that the Comma did not belong within the text he would have edited it out. Erasmus was a very well studied theologian and his work was done to a very high standard. It is unlikely that he would have simply kept in a passage he felt was not scripture based on 1 manuscript that had dubious origins and readings. Anyone who has read his annotations would be aware just how seriously he took his work.

Stephanus and Beza produced 13 more editions of the TR, Stephanus 9 and Beza 4. These two scholars edited the work of Erasmus using more manuscripts. The Comma was included in every single edition these two men produced.

Robert Stephens in his 3rd edition of the Greek NT in the margin stated that 7 of the 15/16 manuscripts that he had in his possession contained the Johannine Comma. This would mean that Stephanus had manuscripts available to him that we do not have today. 

It would have to be asserted that these 3 men were either dishonest or inept.

Here it would seem that Dr Smith is appealing to the “promise” made by Erasmus that he would include the passage if it was found in any Greek manuscript.

This unfortunately is appealing to dated information that has been shown false.

There are actually 2 myths regarding Erasmus and his inclusion of the verse in his 3rd edition, which were not included in his first two editions of his Greek New Testament. 

The first and most popular being that Erasmus after excluding the wording as found in the longer reading in his first edition, had promised that he would include the Comma Johanneum in his future editions if a single Greek manuscript was found that contained it. A manuscript was then found and given to Erasmus. This manuscript, commonly believed to be  Codex Montfortianus was either found or was simply made to order.

This myth was propagated by Bruce Metzger.

Bruce Metzger 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 found–or made to order” (Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 1st and 2nd editions).  

The second and more recent myth being that Erasmus had challenged Edward Lee to find a Greek manuscript that included the Comma Johanneum. This myth started with Erika Rummel in 1986 in the book Erasmus’ Annotations. This claim was also repeated  by Dr James white in his book The Truth about the KJV-Only Controversy 1995. It is the latter who has likely made more of an impact with this claim.

“Erasmus protested that he was simply following the Greek texts. In responding to Lee, Erasmus challenged him to “produce a Greek manuscript that has what is missing in my edition”

James White the KJV only controversy pages 60-61

 

 

However, BOTH of these myths have been refuted by  H.J. de Jonge , the Dean of the Faculty of Theology at Rijksuniversiteit (Leiden, Netherlands).

In 1980 de Jonge, a recognised expert on Erasmian studies stated regarding Metzgers assertion regarding a promise that 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”.

Subsequently Metzger retracted his own assertion in his own 3rd edition of The text of the New Testament.

“What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus’ promise to include the Comma Johanneum if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent suspicion that MS 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H. J. DeJonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion” (Metzger, The Text of The New Testament, 3rd edition, p. 291, footnote 2).

In the fourth edition we find the following where Metzger outlines this claim after clearly stating that amongst the charges against Erasmus it APPEARED to be that of the charge of Jacobus Lopis Stunica…..

“Among the cricisms leveled at Erasmus, the most serious
appeared to be the charge of Stunica, one of the editors of Ximenes’
Complutensian Polyglot, that his text lacked part of the final chapter
of 1 John, namely the Trinitarian statement concerning “the Father,
the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are
three that bear witness in earth” (1 John 5.7-8, King James Version).
Erasmus replied that he had not found any Greek manuscript that
contained these words, though he had in the meanwhile examined
several others besides those on which he relied when first preparing
his text. In an unguarded moment, Erasmus may have promised that
he would insert the Comma Johanneum, as k is called,^^ in future
editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained
the passage. At length, .such a copy was found—or was made to
order! 

Metger/Ehrman The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th edition page 146

But this was the claim as it APPEARED to be….but we now now the claim, that Metzger made in volume 2 and then outlined in volume 4, was not in fact true.

Elijah Hixon in a study on 1 John 5:7 made the following comment regarding Montfortianus

GA 61 is the infamous manuscript on whose authority Erasmus added the CJ to his third edition of the Greek New Testament (1522). No, Erasmus didn’t promise to include the CJ if someone could give him a Greek manuscript with it, and no, 61 wasn’t made to force Erasmus’ hand.
Evangelical Textual Criticism: The Greek Manuscripts of the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7–8)

However, this myth is still eluded to today, obviously by those who have through lack of a full study on the subject,  only read or are only aware of the assertion of Metzger and not the later retraction of the said assertion.

De Jong also refuted the claim of a challenge . De jong wrote in a letter dated June 13, 1995 to , Michael Maynard.

I have checked again Erasmus’ words quoted by Erika Rummel and her comments on them in her book Erasmus’ Annotations. This is what Erasmus writes [on] in his Liber tertius quo respondet … 13 Ed. Lei: Erasmus first records that Lee had reproached him with neglect of the MSS. of 1 John because Er. (according to Lee) had consulted only one MS. Erasmus replies that he had certainly not used only one ms., but many copies, first in England, then in Brabant, and finally at Basle. He cannot accept, therefore, Lee’s reproach of negligence and impiety. ‘Is it negligence and impiety, if I did not consult manuscripts which were simply not within my reach? I have at least assembled whatever I could assemble. Let Lee produce a Greek MS. which contains what my edition does not contain and let him show that that manuscript was within my reach. Only then can he reproach me with negligence in sacred matters.’ From this passage you can see that Erasmus does not challenge Lee to produce a manuscript etc. What Erasmus argues is that Lee may only reproach Erasmus with negligence of MSS if he demonstrates that Erasmus could have consulted any MS. in which the Comma Johanneum figured. Erasmus does not at all ask for a MS. containing the Comma Johanneum. He denies Lee the right to call him negligent and impious if the latter does not prove that Erasmus neglected a manuscript to which he had access. In short, Rummel’s interpretation is simply wrong. The passage she quotes has nothing to do with a challenge. Also, she cuts the quotation short, so that the real sense of the passage becomes unrecognizable. She is absolutely not justified in speaking of a challenge in this case or in the case of any other passage on the subject (emphasis in original) (de Jonge, cited from Maynard, p. 383).

Jeffrey Khoo also wrote:

“Yale professor Roland Bainton, another Erasmian expert, agrees with de Jonge, 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’” (Jeffrey Khoo, Kept Pure in All Ages, 2001, p. 88).

So we see both myths simply do not hold up under scrutiny.

Erasmus simply stated that he would have included the longer verse if any manuscript did include it but as already shown this in no way constituted a promise nor did he make a bet or make a challenge regarding the inclusion. An important note here is that Erasmus never stated that it was not scripture, or even that no Greek manuscript contained the comma, only it was not in any of the Greek manuscripts that he had access to at the time that he was producing his first edition.

Erasmus only didn’t include the verse because the manuscripts that he had at the time of writing didn’t include them. But this leads to another incorrect assertion made against Erasmus, that he only had 6-10 manuscripts.

While this may be correct for his first edition, we know that Erasmus did work off of limited manuscripts in his earlier works. This did not mean they did not exist, just he did not have access to any at that time.

 

 

9) None of the English Bibles that preceded the KJV contained the Comma (Excluding the Tyndale which has it in brackets)

This is totally false. I have no idea where Dustin has obtained this information. It really is not hard to find. I have a version of all of these Bibles. The verse is included in EVERY SINGLE ONE. This is the easiest claim to disprove.  You can check for yourself, you don’t even need to buy these Bibles, you can view them online.  Textus Receptus Bibles  Go check for yourselves. Search Biblegateway or Biblehub, they have these versions on their site. This is shown false with just the basic of studies an it does shock me that this was not done before the claim was made.

 

The only thing which he had correct at this point is that the Tyndale Bible has the verse in Brackets. Brackets are found in the Coverdale, Matthews and the Great Bible. What is interesting though, is that in ALL of these Bibles, verse 8, . which is also part of the comma and also forms part of the textual variant, reads as the KJV (TR) but none are included in brackets.

Tyndale Bible 1534
1 John 5:7 (For ther are thre which beare recorde in heuen the father the worde and the wholy goost. And these thre are one)

Coverdale 1535
1 John 5:7 (For there are thre which beare recorde in heauen: the father, the worde, and the holy goost, & these thre are one.)

Matthews Bible 1537
1 john 5:7 (For there are thre which beare recorde in heauen, the father, the worde, and the holye Ghoste. And these thre are one.)

The Great Bible 1539
1 John 5:7 (For ther are thre which beare recorde in heauen the father the worde & the wholy goost. And these thre are one.)

Geneva Bible 1560
1 John 5:7 For there are three, which beare recorde in heauen, the Father, the Worde, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Bishops Bible 1568
1 John 5:7 For there are three which beare recorde in heauen, the father, the worde, and the holy ghost, and these three are one.

 

 

Tyndale Bible
1 John 7:8 For there are thre which beare recorde (in erth:) the sprete and water and bloud: and these thre are one.

Coverdale Bible
1 John 5:8 And there are thre which beare recorde in earth: the sprete, water and bloude, and these thre are one.

Matthews Bible
1 John 5:8 For there are thre, whiche beare recorde in earth the spyrite and water, and bloude, and these thre are one.

The Great Bible
1 John 5:8 And ther are thre which beare recorde (in earth) the sprete & water, and bloud: & these thre are one.

Verse 8 is part of the Comma, if verse 7 is in doubt then verse 8 would also be. Yet this is not shown by these translations.

 

10) The Comma has been rejected by all serious Scholars

There are 2 points to this. 1) it is an appeal to authority. 2) It implies that if you accept the comma you are not a serious scholar which is just an appeal to the no true scotsman fallacy.

If I have misunderstood his comment and this is not what he is appealing to I am willing to accept and retract this if that is the case.

PS.
Grammatical evidence

A vital piece of evidence comes to us through the Greek grammar of verses 7 and 8.

While it is not widely known, it is now getting a lot more recognition or at least attention amongst scholars.

There is a

Eugenius Voulgaris was the Archbishop of Cherson (in modern Crimea) and also a Greek linguist.

He state in a letter dated 10th December 1780 that he had noticed something in the Grammar that had not been noticed before, he talks about a Grammatical change if the words of the  Johannine Comma are not included.

“This, however, I am able to add here, something which, to my knowledge, has not been heretofore observed. Surely if the passage is absent, if it is secreted away through alteration, the result is that not even verse 8, which follows, would stand, unless verse 7 came first. It is this I wish to discuss. In the Latin version this is correctly expressed with the phrase in the masculine gender,(1) but in the original Greek text itself, if the prior verse is not there, it obviously by no means can stand without some violence to the syntax and through a most obvious solecism. Since τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα (the spirit and the water and the blood) are all neuter nouns, how will they agree with the preceding τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες (there are three who give witness) and the following καὶ οὑτοι οἱ τρεῖς κ.τ.λ. (and these three, etc.)? It is very well known, since all have experience with it, and it is clearly a peculiar genius of our language, that masculine and feminine nouns may be construed with nouns, adjectives and pronouns in the neuter, with regard to the actual sense (τὰ πράγματα). On the other hand no one has ever claimed that neuter noun substantives are indicated by masculine or feminine adjectives or pronouns. However, we read as follows in the 8th verse: και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισι. But, I ask, wouldn’t the natural and appropriate syntax here rather be: και τρια εισιν τα μαρτυρουντα εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και τα τρια εις το εν εισιν. But the former is written, not the latter. What reason can therefore be given for this failure to comply with the rule? It can only be the expression of the preceding 7th verse, which through the immediately following 8th verse is set forth symbolically and obviously restated, an allusion made to that which precedes. Therefore the three who give witness in heaven are first placed in the 7th verse, τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν. Then immediately the very same three witnesses are brought in, to confirm on earth the same witness, through these three symbols, in vs. 8: και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν. And so our Evangelist might say “They are the same as those giving witness in heaven.” (This is sufficiently indicated through the particle καί, the force of which here is not simply connective but plainly identifying. [At this point, Eugenius shifts to Greek] Concerning what was said in the text [perhaps = manuscript] above, clearly the Father, the Word and the Spirit. These are the ones giving witness also on the earth, and they are made manifest to us through symbols. These symbols are the spirit, through which the Father is revealed, the blood, through which the Son is revealed, and the water, through which the Holy Spirit is revealed. But these three, who above by way of revelation through the divine names themselves are presented as giving witness in heaven, are the same on earth through remembrance in the divine plan presented repeatedly by way of symbols. But alas! I have made a cup, not a jug.(2)_________ Poltaviae, ad d. 10 December. 1780.

Georgios Babiniotis who is one of the worlds leading Greek linguists today,  not only states that the argument regarding gender agreement is a correct argument but he also further states that verse 7 justifies verse 8 because of the syntactic parallelism of the two verses.  He is not a theologian and argues simply on the basis of language and grammar.

In an email response to Nick Sayers (who runs the website Textus-receptus.com) he said:

I will not discuss the opinion of the really great theologist and scholar (yet not a linguist) bishop Ευγένιος Βούλγαρης as I do not know on what conditions it was formulated. However, linguistically —though with another explanation— Ευγένιος Βούλγαρης is right to consider verse 5.7 obligatory for the existence of verse 5.8.

What you are asking has two aspects: a theological and a linguistic one. I can only say my own opinion on the linguistic aspect of the specific text within the frame of what is quite often used in regard to the Greek language and passages of New Testament Greek.

The use of masculine gender and not neuter on 5.8.

«καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ,
τὸ Πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα
καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν»

is linguistically justified on the pattern of “syntactic parallelism”, i.e. on the ground that it makes a pattern completely the same (“parallel”) in structure with that of 5.7.

ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ,
ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα
καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν είσι

So for Modern Linguistic analysis what is important is not the mere grammatical “gender agreement rule” (which would lead to the usage of neuter gender : «καὶ τρία εἰσὶ τὰ μαρτυροῦντα ἐν τῇ γῇ…»), but the overruling schema of “syntactic parallelism” which is much more stronger than a simple gender agreement rule.

Conclusion. The issue we refer to has more to do with the linguistic style of the passage; it is the result of a stylistic selection which is far beyond the usage of a grammatical/syntactic rule that would lead to neuter gender and which furthermore would eliminate verse 5.7.

George later said in an email:

“…I have given you my own linguistic explanation which is to keep verse 5.7. which justifies verse 5.8. It is grammatical and mainly “syntactic parallelism” of these two verses…”

Steven Avery on his forum purebibleforum.com states

“Personally, I have talked of this parallelism for years, how the two verses are one grammatical unit, it is nice to see such a high-level explanation (and vindication )”

Barry Hofstetter gave a rebuttal to the Grammar argument, however, this rebuttal, has been shown to be inaccurate.

Here is a link to the full argument that Barry Hofstetter presented which can be found on James Snapp Jr’s blog ThetextoftheGospels.com 

Hofstetter argued against the claims of Voulgaris and used 2 verses to support his argument

The first being Matthew 23:23:

Here is what Hofstetter wrote:

● Matthew 23:23:  τα βαρυτερα του νομου την κρισιν και τον ελεον και την πιστιν – “the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith.”…
            Here, we have an adjectival substantive which is in Greek neuter plural, “the weightier matters,” which is then particularized by three nouns in apposition, law, which is masculine, mercy, which is feminine, and faith, also feminine. 

However, this example fails to do what Hofstetter claimed that it did.

The argument of Voulgaris does not argue against this example.

Voulgaris specifically stated:
“that masculine and feminine nouns may be construed with nouns, adjectives and pronouns in the neuter,”

Which is EXACTLY what we have in the verse given by Hoftstetter as support against the argument of Voulgaris. Rather than disprove Voulgaris, this verse actually proves his statement.

The 3 nouns in apposition are masculine and feminine nouns,  NOT neuter nouns, and the adjectival substantive is in the NEUTER not masculine or feminine.

Voulgaris’ argument is in relation to the neuter nouns that are not indicated by masculine or feminine adjectives or pronouns.

“On the other hand no one has ever claimed that neuter noun substantives are indicated by masculine or feminine adjectives or pronouns.”

Matthew 23:23 is an example of the FIRST statement of Voulgaris, not the second. Therefore, it simply fails to disprove the argument.

 

This is the same in the case of 1 John 2:16:

• FirstJohn 2:16: οτι παν το εν τω κοσμω η επιθυμια της σαρκος και η επιθυμια των οφθαλμων και η αλαζονεια του βιου – “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life”

“All that is in the world” is a neuter substantive phrase that is then particularized by three nouns in the feminine, lust (twice) and pride.

It would seem that Barry Hofstetter did not fully understand the argument of Voulgaris:

So basically we can sum this up

When we have a NEUTER Noun followed by Masculine noun, masculine noun, feminine noun (for example) this is perfectly fine.

It is ONLY when the Nouns that follow are Neuter that they must agree with the pronoun.

When we have a MASCULINE (or FEMININE) noun followed by Neuter noun, Neuter noun, Neuter noun- This is NOT correct grammar.

I would recommend a look at Steven Avery’s awesome refutation of Hofstetters argument on his forum.   PureBibleForum.com 

I had the privilege of discussing this verse with Steven on the 7th October 2022.
You can view the discussion here – Live discussion on Youtube 

Erasmus discussed the grammar of the comma, making note that the passage would “torture grammarians”

It will torture the grammarians that the Spirit, water and blood are described by the phrases “there are three” and “these are one,” especially since the words “Spirit,” “water” and “blood” are grammatically neuter in Greek.
Erasmus Annotations.

Erasmus even gave an explanation.

“The Apostle pays more regard to the sense than to the words, and for three witnesses, as if they were three people, he substitutes three things: Spirit, water and blood. You use the same construction if you say: ‘The building is a witness to the kind of builder you are.’”
Erasmus Annotations

We must ask WHY the experts that say this verse is an interpolation do not mention this when they discuss Erasmus and his first two editions of the TR.

 As we have already seen, John Calvin stated the verse flowed better when the clause is added.

Since, however, the passage flows better when this clause is added,
John Calvin Commentary on the Catholic Epistles

The grammar issue was also noted as far back as the 4th Century. Gregory of Nazianzus made reference to it in his 31st oration.

“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?”
Gregory of Nazianzus Oration 31

I am also going to give a possibility for how the longer reading was lost that is not based on deliberate omission but one of accidental oversight.  I am not at all stating that this IS the way in which it was lost from the Greek, I am simply offering a possibility.

lets have a look at verse 7 and 8 together as it appears in the TR

ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες εν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν

καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἕν τῇ γῇ, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἐν εἰσὶν

Notice the start of each verse are identical except for the Ὅτι (hoti) at the beginning of verse 7 and the  καὶ at the start of verse 8

IF a copiest eye went from the μαρτυροῦντες (martyrountes) of verse 7 to the μαρτυροῦντες  (martyrountes) of verse 8 we would end up with a text that looks like this.

ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἕν τῇ γῇ, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἐν εἰσὶν

Which is almost identical to the text of the UBS/NA text

ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσὶν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.

Whether you accept the words as they are in the KJV is ultimately down to your own personal understanding and conviction.

However unlike it is very commonly portrayed by those who argue against the KJV, either through lack of study or through being disingenuous with the truth, there is actually plenty and indeed favourable supporting evidence for the inclusion of the Comma. We should not simply stop at the lack of existent Greek manuscripts but rather look at the full array of evidence, especially where we have good evidence that corruption of the verse was taking place. 

I am still looking into this passage, and will update this as and when new information is found.

If you liked this study please subscribe here

You can buy my books on Amazon there is a link here 

Help me keep this site free for all. Join our Patreon membershiphere