Is 1 John 5:7 as it is worded in the KJV correct?

 Is 1 John 5:7 as it is worded in the KJV correct?

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. KJV

Modern versions of the Bible do not include the full wording as found in the KJV

1 John 5:7 For there are three that testify: NIV

1 John 5:7 So we have these three witnesses– NLT

1 John 5:7 For there are three that testify: ESV

1 John 5:7 For there are three that testify: NASB

1 John 5:7 There are three witnesses:  GNT

1 John 5:7 For there are three witnesses —  ISV

But which is the correct rendering?

What I will not be doing in this writing is making an argument for the verses appeal to the trinity I have addressed that in a separate writing. I shall only be dealing with is the wording as found in the KJV correct? I will also point out that this is the only verse that, although I believe is scripture,  I would not use it in a debate if someone rejected it as I do believe that if we are going to engage in honest scholarly work, we must accept that there is much evidence against this verse being scripture but probably not as much as is commonly believed. 

It should also be stated before we start that the argument actually deals with verse 7 and 8 not simply verse 7. 

It is a common belief today, including most scholars, that the words of the verse as they appear in the KJV do not belong in scripture.

It is often stated today that they are not included in the majority of Greek manuscripts and didn’t enter into the Greek until the 16th Century when they were actually added by Erasmus in the 3rd edition of his Textus receptus.  He did not include them in his first 2 editions. 

In this writing I shall address both of these arguments against this wording of the verse as found in the KJV and also look at the other evidence that is available. 

I must note that it is at least in my own personally experience that these claims are often made by people that have not studied the subject in any great detail and are simply regurgitating the tiny but of information that they have either heard or read somewhere.

Before we look at the evidence for the and against the verse it is very important that we deal with the claims regarding Erasmus. 

Erasmus

Lets start with the claim that Erasmus added the words. 

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

Samuel Prideaux Tregelles made this claim back in the 19th Century. 

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

Erasmus only stated why he didn’t include it in his first 2 editions, because he didn’t have a manuscript with the passage in, he made no bet or promise to include it within the next text if a manuscript could be found. He also stated that had he had access to a manuscript that did contain the comma he would certainly have included it. This is not bet nor is it a promise, it is simply stating why he didnt include it and what he would have done had he had access to a manuscript that contained it. 

In 1980 de Jonge, a recognised expert on Erasmian studies, who is considered by many as the worlds leader in the field, 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. 

However, this myth is still often asserted 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 scholarship and Metzgers own 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 for Lee to “find” a manuscript. 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. His argument in his apology against Edward Lee was only against his being accused of being negligent. 

Erasmus only didn’t include the verse because the manuscripts that he had at the time of writing didn’t include them.

Erasmus stated that he had checked more than 7 manuscripts and none had the wording as found in the Latin (father, son, Holy Spirit).  Valla had stated that he used 7 manuscripts and Erasmus is showing that his study had included even more than that. (This would allude, at least, he is talking more than 7 manuscripts just on this passage alone). 

“Since I found no mention in the Greek texts of the Father, the
Word, and the Holy Spirit, I had briefly pointed out the additional words
in our texts without either approving or disapproving anything. Lee280 confronts me with Valla,281 who, being otherwise diligent, did not mention this
matter and would no doubt have mentioned it if he had discovered a variant. I shall not reply here that Valla was human and that something might
have escaped his attention. I shall merely say that I examined at various
times more than seven manuscripts282 and did not find in any of them what
we read in our texts. If I had come across one manuscript that had the reading found in our texts, I would have added the phrase missing in the others
on the strength of that one. Since that did not happen I did the only thing
possible and indicated what was lacking in the Greek texts”
Erasmus apologia Edward Lee. 

In fact Erasmus later stated that he had used many and not just one 

First of all Lee acts as if Ihad had no more than one text, whereas I used many, first in England, then in Brabant, and finally in Basel on more than one occasion,297 and as if I had
followed only the one, faulty codex without consulting the rest…..I spared neither my purse nor my health in this business, by what stretch of the imagination am I suspected of trusting only one manuscript and not consulting the rest?
Erasmus apologia Edward Lee. 

Erasmus himself had a large manuscript collection.  These were “stolen” by British customs as he was leaving England. (They were returned to him). 

He sailed (we have here a welcome fixed date) from Dover, July 8, 1514, with a calm sea and a fair wind, fortune otherwise being foul as usual. The Custom-house officers did not seize his money this time, but they detained his luggage with his MSS. Probably he spoke English ill, and could not explain himself. He made the air ring with his clamours, called them robbers, assured himself that they had stolen the labours of his life to sell his papers back to him at their own price
Life and letters of Erasmus Froude, page 161

This was in 1514, 2 years before he would publish his textus Receptus. While we do not know exactly how many manuscripts Erasmus had in his own private collection, it shows that he was not limited to just the number that he had at his disposal in Basel. 

Erasmus argues against the claim of his being negligent. 

Can anything be more slanderous than this? And is it
‘negligence’ which ‘smacks of some impiety’ if I did not consult texts to
which I could not gain access? I certainly gathered as many as I could.
Erasmus apologia Edward Lee. 

Erasmus also states that he did not disapprove of “our reading” (the Vulgate reading) only that he was translating what he found in the Greek texts. 

After all I do not disapprove
of our reading; indeed I leave it as is. I merely translate what I find in the
Greek texts.

Erasmus Apologia Edward Lee

In relation to the information presented by De Jong,  Dan Wallace stated that there remains a possibility that Erasmus did make such a claim (as he said De Jong’s work was not complete), but it was scholarly consensus that Erasmus did not make such a promise, so until any further light is shed the position has to stand. 

So, there remains the possibility that Erasmus did make just such a claim, but it is buried in unaccessed volumes. Be that as it may, the consensus of scholarly opinion is that, until further revelations come to light, de Jonge’s position that Erasmus never made such a promise must stand.
Wallace on the Comma Johanneum at 1 John 5.7 (thegospelcoalition.org)

So despite the evidence saying otherwise and the assertion being made on an incorrect understanding of what Erasmus had said, due to the preconceived belief that Erasmus did make such a bet, Dan Wallace has left the “possibility” of the bet on the table ..I expect out of want or need, rather than any factual reasoning. NO evidence points to such a bet. 

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 (although even this is highly unlikely seeing Erasmus’ own statement that he had used more than 7 manuscripts on 1 John 5:7 alone) , we know that Erasmus did work off of limited manuscripts, directly, in his earlier works at Basel although this number is not actually stated only postulated. This did not mean they did not exist, just he did not have access to any at that time.  He also very clearly stated that he consulted manuscripts in England and Brabant and then Basel. THe claim that he had 6 -10 or even upto 20 as some do say, is pure conjecture. 

Erasmus had been studying Greek manuscripts for many many years prior to his writing his TR. Nobody who has studied this in detail would assert Erasmus only knew of 6-10 manuscripts. To say that Erasmus based his first edition only on the number of manuscripts at Basel, whatever that number may be, is simply to ignore the historical evidence of his prior studies and personal library.  He was well aware of variant readings, he had collated many of them during his studies,  and he subsequently produced 5 editions of his TR the latter 3 all containing the words that are in contestation here. While it may be said, even if almost certainly underestimated,  Erasmus directly used limited manuscripts, in the production of his first edition this simply is not the case for his later editions and he most certainly had access to many more manuscripts prior to creating his first edition. Of course, Erasmus was also fully aware of the reading in the Vulgate where the verse was clearly evident. It is not as if Erasmus was totally ignorant of the verse, despite some obviously thinking Erasmus was working in a vacuum where the verse was not known. Had Erasmus had doubts regarding the authenticity of the verse then he most certainly would have removed it from his later editions. 

Erasmus included the comma in his paraphrase of the 1st epistle of John published in 1520.

“For the Spirit too is truth just as the Father and the Son are. The truth of all three is one, just as the nature of all three is one, just as the nature of all three is one. For there are three in heaven who furnish testimony to Christ: the Father, the Word, and the Spirit. The Father, who not once but twice sent forth his voice from the sky and publicly testified that this was his uniquely beloved Son in whom he found no offence; the Word, who, by performing so many miracles and by dying and rising again, showed that he was the true Christ, both God and human alike, the reconciler of God and humankind; the holy Spirit, who descended on his head at baptism and after the resurrection glided down upon the disciples. The agreement of these three is absolute. The Father is the author, the Son the messenger, the Spirit the inspirer. There are likewise three things on earth which attest Christ: the human spirit which he laid down on the cross, the water, and the blood which flowed from his side in death. And these three witnesses are in agreement. They testify that he was a man. The first three declare him to be God.” 
Collected Works of Erasmus – Paraphrase on the First Epistle of John Translator John J Bateman page 174

This inclusion in his paraphrase of 1 John 5:7 is 2 years prior to his inclusion of the verse in his 3rd edition of his TR. This shows hat Erasmus had no problem with the verse being scripture. It was not that he doubted the verse, he simply did not find it within the Greek manuscripts he consulted.

It is therefore my postulation that Erasmus INCLUDED the words in his later editions rather than ADDING them. There is a fundamental difference between the 2. The words were already well known and attested to as we shall shortly see.

So the fact is that Erasmus never promised to include the comma if a manuscript was provided that contained it, only that he had stated that if Lee could show that Erasmus had access to a manuscript that contained it but did not use this manuscript that Lee could accuse him of negligence. The claim regarding the promise is simply false based on a misrepresentation of what Erasmus actually stated. 

Here again is the actual argument of Erasmus against Lee’s accusation. 

Can anything be more slanderous than this? And is it
‘negligence’ which ‘smacks of some impiety’ if I did not consult texts to
which I could not gain access? I certainly gathered as many as I could. Let
Lee produce a Greek manuscript that has written what is lacking in my
edition and let him prove that I had access to this manuscript; and then he
may accuse me of negligence in sacred doctrines.
Erasmus Edward Lee.  

Erasmus did not challenge Lee to provide him a manuscript with 1 John 5:7 in it, nor did he promise to include the verse if a manuscript was provided to him. Erasmus had stated that in order for Lee to show that Erasmus was negligent he would have to produce a Greek manuscript and to show that Erasmus had had access to it.  

It is also here, important to get some context regarding his argument with Edward Lee. Lee had written his own apologia against the text of Erasmus, where he criticised and scrutinised Erasmus and his text. This criticism included but in no way was limited to the reading of 1 John 5:7. The response of Erasmus in his detailed apologia against Edward Lee’s criticism was to provide answers for his readings. 
 

Majority Manuscripts

What about the assertion that the majority of Greek manuscripts do not contain them and they do not show in the Greek until Erasmus.

There most certainly is some truth in this but the reality is that it actually overstated how much support this actually gives. It is very true that the majority of Greek manuscripts that we have available today do not include the words as found in the KJV.

There are a couple of things that need to be noted when someone appeals to this as support for the non inclusion of the words. 

Those that argue against the KJV using this fact, but use versions of the Bible other than the KJV are rather shooting themselves in the foot. While the majority text is obviously important and cannot simply be ignored, if the ONLY thing that confirms the authenticity of a scripture is the majority reading then the text that underlies the vast vast majority of modern versions such as the NIV, ESV, NASB, ERV, ISV, NLT etc face the exact same problem, as it departs away from the majority text reading in literally thousands of places. I wonder how many of those that reject this verse also stay consistent and reject all other minority readings. This would leave them unable to use their modern versions in literally thousands of verses. Either they are not aware of just how many minority readings are found in the modern versions or they are deliberately being disingenuous in their specific rejection of the words here. 

The men behind the origination of the text behind the modern versions, Westcott and Hort, themselves proclaimed that the true readings may be found in a minority reading.  

“A few documents are not, by reason of their paucity, appreciably less likely to be right than a multitude opposed to them” (Introduction to the Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament, 1881, p. 45)

Infact,  there are minority readings that are accepted as being the true reading even by those that hold to the Critical text. We need look no further than the Longer ending of Mark which, while still found in most modern versions is rejected as being authentic by most scholars, this despite it only lacking in 2 of the over 1650 Greek manuscripts that we have today for this portion of Marks Gospel. 

What CANNOT be contested by those that assert the authority of 1 John 5:7 is the lack of attestation in the Greek, in fact, most people, whether scholars or laymen, who affirm this verse as scripture, fully acknowledge that the Greek manuscript attestation are few. There are 10 Greek manuscripts in existence today that include the words as they are found in the KJV. 5 contain the words within the text and 5 contain them within the margin.

The manuscripts that include the words are:

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,as I do,  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 and is dated to the 14th Century. 

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)

It demonstrates that the comma did not, nor could not have entered the Greek in the 16th century through Erasmus like many assert that it did.

61, 918, 2473, 2318, 629 (in text) 

The text of both 629 and 61 are very similar. 

The manuscripts that have the words in the margin are: 

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.

88, 177, 221, 429, 636, 

(10 manuscripts not 8 as many assert). 5 in the text and 5 in the margin)

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 asserts it was probably a century or 2 later than this. (It must also be noted Wallace states 9 manuscripts when in fact this should be 10.)  

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)

While at first this might sound overwhelming as we have over 5800 manuscripts available today, we must be aware this is not 5800 -10. There are not 5800 manuscripts that witness to this verse. There are only around 480 that contain any part of 1 John 5. However, this falls to just 262 manuscripts that contain 1 John 5:7 and therefore are witnesses to the inclusion or exclusion of the words. So the truth is we have a lot less manuscript evidence for 1 John 5:7 than I would expect most people would assume we have. 

We should also not ignore the manuscripts that contain the text in the margin. Margin references do not always denote that the text is not considered authoritative, it can also mean that while the original manuscript did not contain the words,a later scribe who understood the words to be authoritative put them in the margin as he believed they should be there. It could also be that the scribe was unsure if the words were meant to be in the text or not, maybe his exemplar did not contain the words but the scribe was aware of manuscripts that did contain them and so put them in the margin. What it certainly shows is that the words were known at the time. 

Furthermore, many of these manuscripts that contain this portion of 1 John 5 are still yet to be fully examined. It is possible, although it is just a possibility, that more evidence for the Comma could be found within these manuscripts. 

Codex Montfortianus

Bruce Metzger asserts that the manuscript was copied from the Lincoln codex. 

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

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, at least possibleif not plausible. We must also note that even had the manuscript been created around 1502, there is no way it can be asserted in was created to influence Easmus who had not yet even began his TR creation. 

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 of another manuscript or what was known within the Greek text elsewhere. 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 as the manuscript does not read this way. Erasmus either did not use Montfortianus as his exemplar or he changed the text here 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 spirit holy.

The text of Erasmus 3rd edition 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. Erasmus very clearly in his annotations records that the British manuscript did NOT contain this word. Thus either Erasmus was incorrect in his record of how the British manuscript read at this point or Erasmus had excluded the word despite it being in the text of Montfortianus if this is the manuscript he used.  

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.

Erasmus had stated the the British manuscript also did not contain this phrase 

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 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.

It should be noted that Codex Montfortianus does not have articles in 1 John 5:7. 

The 3rd edition of Erasmus text on 1 John 5:7 does not contain articles. These were not added until the 4th edition (where he almost certainly used the Complutensian Polyglot)  

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 today that Codex Britannicus that Erasmus makes mention of, is Codex Montfortianus. However, when Montfortianus is studied, this assertion is at least doubtful.

As Erasmus refers to the British Codex I would strongly disagree with Evanson on his claim that the 3rd edition of Erasmus utilsed the text of the Complutensian Polyglot. This being the fact that the Complutensian Polyglot clearly was not called, nor ever has been called, nor could be called the British codex. It is very likely as I already pointed out that the Complutensian Polyglot helped form the readings of the 4th and 5th editions but not the 3rd edition. The Codex was also not available to Erasmus at the time of creating his 3rd Edition and as already noted the Complutension Plyglot has articles where the 3rd Edition of Erasmus does not. 

ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν/οἱ μαρτυροῦντες εν/τῷ οὐρανῷ,/ὁ πατήρ, καὶ/ὁ λόγος, καὶ/τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, καὶ/οἱ τρεῖς εῖς/τὸ ἕν εἰσι· Complutensian Polyglot

Erasmus 5 Editions

ὅτι τρεῖς ἐισιν ὁι μαρτυροῦντες 1516
ὅτι τρεῖς ἐισιν ὁι μαρτυροῦντες 1519 
ὅτι τρεῖς ἐισιν ὁι μαρτυροῦντες ἑν τῷ ὁυρανῷ, πατὴρ, λόγος, καὶ πνεῦμα ἅγιου, καὶ οὗτοι ὁι τρεῖς ἕν ἐισι. 1522
ὅτι τρεῖς ἐισιν ὁι μαρτυροῦντες ἑν τῷ ὁυρανῷ, ὁ πατὴρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα ἅγιου 1527
ὅτι τρεῖς ἐισιν ὁι μαρτυροῦντες ἑν τῷ ὁυρανῷ ὁ πατὴρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα ἅγιου καὶ οὗτοι ὁι τρεῖς ἕν ἐισι.1535 

The text of Erasmus 1535 is very close to the Complutensian Polyglot.

ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν/οἱ μαρτυροῦντες εν/τῷ οὐρανῷ,/ὁ πατήρ, καὶ/ὁ λόγος, καὶ/τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, καὶ/οἱ τρεῖς εῖς/τὸ ἕν εἰσι· Complutensian Polyglot
ὅτι τρεῖς ἐισιν ὁι μαρτυροῦντες ἑν τῷ ὁυρανῷ ὁ πατὴρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα ἅγιου καὶ οὗτοι ὁι τρεῖς ἕν ἐισι. Erasmus 1535

 Ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι· Beza 1598 

A Closer Textual Comparison: The British Codex, Codex Montfortianus, and Erasmus’ Third Edition

One of the strongest arguments made by those who claim that Erasmus simply copied Codex Montfortianus is the obvious similarity between the manuscript and the text printed in his third edition of the Greek New Testament. However, Erasmus’ own annotations reveal a more complicated picture.

What Erasmus Said the British Codex Contained

In his annotations, Erasmus wrote:

“However—lest I should keep anything hidden—there has been found in England one single Greek manuscript in which occurs what is lacking in the commonly-accepted texts. It is written as follows…”

He then gives the text of what he calls the British Codex (Codex Britannicus):

Ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, πατήρ, λόγος καὶ πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν. Καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ, πνεῦμα, ὕδωρ, καὶ αἷμα. Εἰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων…

In English this reads:

“For there are three who bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three bearing witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood. If we receive the testimony of men…”

Notice that Erasmus records only “the Spirit” (πνεῦμα) in the heavenly witnesses. The adjective “Holy” (ἅγιον) is absent.

The Text of Codex Montfortianus

The surviving Codex Montfortianus reads:

ὁτϊ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτϋροῦντ·¨ ἐν τῶ ουνω, πηρ, λογος, καί πνα αγῖον, καί οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς εν εισϊ. καί τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτϋροῦντ·¨ ἐν τῃ γῃ, πνα, ὑδωρ, καί αιμα.

Expanded and translated into English:

“For there are three who bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three who bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood.”

The manuscript therefore includes the word “Holy”, reading “the Holy Spirit”, whereas Erasmus’ quotation of the British Codex simply says “the Spirit.”

Erasmus’ Third Edition (1522)

In the third edition of his printed Greek New Testament, Erasmus published:

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

Translated into English:

“For there are three who bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.”

Again, Erasmus’ printed text contains “the Holy Spirit”, even though his own quotation of the British Codex records only “the Spirit.”

Why This Difference Matters

This discrepancy deserves careful attention.

If Codex Britannicus and Codex Montfortianus are one and the same manuscript, then Erasmus either:

• quoted the manuscript loosely and inadvertently omitted the adjective “Holy” in his annotation, or
• intentionally abbreviated the citation without intending to reproduce every word.

However, another possibility exists.

If Erasmus accurately recorded the wording of the British Codex, then the omission of “Holy” could suggest that Codex Britannicus was not identical to the surviving Codex Montfortianus, but rather represented a closely related manuscript with a slightly different text.

Significantly, Erasmus nevertheless printed “the Holy Spirit” in his third edition. This could indicate that he supplemented the wording from other evidence available to him rather than relying exclusively on the British manuscript.

The Omission at the End of Verse 8

An even more revealing statement appears immediately after Erasmus quotes the British Codex. He writes that he is uncertain whether it happened accidentally that the phrase:

“and these three are unto one”

was not repeated after the earthly witnesses, even though that wording was found in the Greek manuscripts already in his possession.

This observation demonstrates that Erasmus himself believed the British Codex lacked that concluding phrase. Yet his printed Greek text retains it, showing that he consciously combined the reading of the British manuscript with readings preserved in his other Greek witnesses.

Evidence from Other Greek Manuscripts

The inclusion of “Holy” in Erasmus’ printed text should not automatically be taken as proof that he copied Codex Montfortianus. Other Greek witnesses to the Comma Johanneum also contain the adjective.

For example:

• Minuscule 221 reads: “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit” (τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα).
• Minuscule 629 likewise reads: “Father, Word, and Holy Spirit” (Πνεῦμα ἅγιον), albeit with a slightly different word order.

Consequently, the appearance of “Holy” in Erasmus’ third edition could have been influenced by a broader textual tradition rather than by Codex Montfortianus alone.

Conclusion

The textual evidence is more complex than the often-repeated claim that Erasmus simply copied Codex Montfortianus.

His own annotation records the British Codex as reading “the Spirit”, while both Codex Montfortianus and his printed text read “the Holy Spirit.” At the same time, Erasmus explicitly acknowledges that the British Codex apparently omitted the concluding phrase after the earthly witnesses and notes that he retained that wording from other Greek manuscripts.

Taken together, these details portray Erasmus not as a mechanical copyist but as an editor who compared manuscripts and incorporated readings from multiple sources. Whether the British Codex was identical with Codex Montfortianus or was a closely related but distinct witness remains an open question, and the textual differences are significant enough that the identification should not simply be assumed without further argument.

It is also often claimed that Erasmus doubted the manuscript and believed that it was produced to force his hand, so to speak, to include the comma in his Greek text. This is simply incorrect. There is nothing in the writings of Erasmus to indicate that he believed the manuscript was produced for this purpose. What he did claim was that he suspected that the Greek manuscript that was found in England was produced to agree with the Latin reading, not that it was produced to convince him. 

“However, I suspect that this codex was adapted to agree with the manuscripts of the Latins”
Erasmus Annotations

The reference here was to the omission of the wording “these three are one”. This matched Many Latin manuscripts. It was believed by Thomas Aquinas had indicated that the words were added by Arians to change the meaning from substance to agreement. 

Footnotes 

1 Erasmus was evidently aware, even before seeing the Complutensian bible, that Aquinas suggested that the phrase “and these three are one” was added by Arians to make it seem that their unity was only one of testimony or intention, not one of essence; as a result, this phrase was subsequently omitted from many Latin bibles. The unusual omission of this phrase in the Greek text of the British codex made Erasmus suspect its authenticity. See above, chapter 1.6.
Grantley McDonald Raising the Ghost of Arius footnotes page 371 

Erasmus stated: 

Now, the Spanish edition added a scholium from the decretals, attributed to St Thomas. It declares that in the testimony of the Spirit, the water and the blood in carefully-copied codices, the phrase “and these three are one” is not added, and that it seems that this was added by those who favoured the Arian teaching.
Erasmus Annotations. 

It is nothing more than speculation based on what is considered a coincidence that the manuscript Erasmus was given was produced to force his hand rather than presented to him from one that was known to already in existence in order to 
give Erasmus the manuscript that he sought that he had not previously had access to. 

Erasmus, Edward Lee, and the Evidence He Already Knew

One of the recurring problems in discussions surrounding the Comma Johanneum is the tendency to portray Erasmus as though he was unfamiliar with the evidence until a single Greek manuscript was placed before him. The historical record presents a much more nuanced picture.

The Antwerp Manuscript: Evidence Erasmus Already Knew

Long before the British manuscript (often identified with Codex Montfortianus) was presented to Erasmus, he had already encountered another Greek witness associated with Antwerp. Significantly, this manuscript contained the Comma Johanneum in the margin, not in the body of the text.

Erasmus himself commented on this marginal note, explaining that he believed it had been added by “some learned fellow” who did not wish the phrase to pass unnoticed. In other words, Erasmus was already aware that the Comma existed in at least one Greek manuscript tradition, yet he consciously declined to treat that marginal reading as sufficient evidence for inclusion in his printed text.

This observation has important implications. It demonstrates that Erasmus was not simply looking for any Greek manuscript that contained the Comma. Had that been his criterion, the Antwerp manuscript would have provided all the justification he needed. Instead, he distinguished between what he regarded as a secondary marginal annotation and what he considered to be an authentic textual witness.

The Antwerp manuscript should therefore be recognised as historical evidence that the Comma circulated in at least one Greek manuscript known to Erasmus, while also acknowledging Erasmus’ own opinion that the marginal note represented a later addition rather than part of the original text.

His frustration with the controversy is evident in his response to Edward Lee:

“Here you have the sum of the issue, reader; see what an atrocious tragedy Lee raises on this account for my benefit, as if he had discovered an argument in which he might blow that trumpet of Allecto with all his strength.”

Far from treating the issue as decisive, Erasmus believed Lee had greatly exaggerated its significance.

Lorenzo Valla and the Question of Seven Greek Manuscripts

Another frequently overlooked aspect of the controversy concerns Lorenzo Valla. Edward Lee appealed to Valla, who had reportedly consulted seven Greek manuscripts without drawing attention to the absence of the Comma Johanneum.

Erasmus did not simply accept Lee’s argument. Instead, he proposed several possibilities. Perhaps Valla had not been paying close attention to this particular passage. Perhaps Valla had not considered the issue important enough to mention. Or perhaps Valla’s manuscripts actually contained the Comma. Erasmus openly admitted that he could not know, because he had not personally examined Valla’s manuscripts.

This response reveals an important feature of Erasmus’ editorial method. He refused to rely upon second-hand testimony, even when that testimony might have supported inclusion of the passage. His standard was not hearsay but direct examination of the available evidence.

Consequently, Lee’s appeal to Valla cannot be used to establish that Valla’s manuscripts lacked the Comma. The evidence simply does not allow that conclusion.

The Charge of Arianism

Perhaps the most serious accusation levelled against Erasmus was that he had deliberately omitted the Comma in order to promote Arian or anti-Trinitarian doctrine.

Erasmus rejected this charge emphatically.

He dismissed the Arians as little more than historical “ghosts” and argued that, even if they were still active, the doctrine of the Trinity could be defended from numerous other passages of Scripture far more effectively than from this single text. His argument was not that the Trinity lacked biblical support, but precisely the opposite: the Christian doctrine did not stand or fall on 1 John 5:7.

This is a crucial point. Erasmus did not defend himself by denying the Trinity or by expressing hostility toward orthodox doctrine. Rather, he argued that Lee’s accusation was baseless and that Trinitarian theology rested securely upon many passages of Scripture.

A More Nuanced Picture of Erasmus

Taken together, these pieces of evidence paint a picture that differs significantly from many modern summaries.

Erasmus did not ignore all Greek evidence relating to the Comma. He was already aware of the Antwerp manuscript but judged its marginal reading to be secondary and therefore insufficient for inclusion.

He did not accept Lorenzo Valla’s testimony uncritically but insisted that editorial decisions should rest upon evidence he had personally examined.

He did not omit the Comma because of anti-Trinitarian convictions, but explicitly rejected such accusations and pointed to the abundance of other biblical texts supporting the doctrine of the Trinity.

Most importantly, the Antwerp evidence undermines the simplistic claim that Erasmus merely wanted any Greek manuscript containing the Comma. He already knew of one such witness and still declined to include the passage. This suggests that when he later accepted the testimony of the British manuscript, he regarded it as possessing a different evidential value than a mere marginal annotation.

Whether one ultimately concludes for or against the authenticity of the Comma Johanneum, the historical record shows that Erasmus’ editorial decisions were more considered and methodical than many later retellings would suggest. The primary sources reveal a careful scholar wrestling with competing evidence, not a man casually persuaded by pressure or easily deceived by a convenient manuscript.

Did Erasmus Simply Want Any Greek Manuscript Containing the Comma?

One of the most common narratives surrounding the Comma Johanneum is that Erasmus was eventually “convinced” to include the passage after a single Greek manuscript was presented to him. In some retellings, the implication is even stronger: Erasmus merely wanted any Greek witness that contained the Comma and accepted the first one that appeared.

The historical evidence suggests a far more nuanced picture.

The British Manuscript Was Not the First Greek Witness Erasmus Had Encountered

Before the so-called British manuscript (often identified with Codex Montfortianus) ever came into the discussion, Erasmus was already aware of another Greek witness associated with Antwerp.

In his own writings, Erasmus notes that this manuscript contained the Comma Johanneum in the margin. More importantly, he did not treat this as convincing evidence for inclusion. Instead, he explicitly stated that the words appeared to have been added by “some learned fellow” who did not wish the phrase to go unnoticed.

This detail is crucial.

If Erasmus’ only criterion had been the existence of the Comma in any Greek manuscript, then the Antwerp witness would have satisfied that requirement. Yet he did not include the passage on that basis.

Erasmus Distinguished Between Different Kinds of Evidence

The Antwerp manuscript demonstrates that Erasmus was capable of distinguishing between what he regarded as an authentic textual witness and what he considered to be a later marginal addition.

This directly challenges the often-repeated claim that Erasmus was simply searching for any Greek manuscript containing the Comma.

His actions indicate the opposite. He was willing to reject Greek evidence that, in his judgment, appeared secondary or interpolated.

Why Then Did He Treat the British Manuscript Differently?

If Erasmus had already dismissed the Antwerp marginal reading as a later addition, then his subsequent acceptance of the British manuscript implies that he viewed it differently.

This does not prove that he believed the manuscript to be ancient, nor does it prove that his judgment was necessarily correct. However, it strongly suggests that he regarded the manuscript as representing a genuine textual witness rather than merely another marginal gloss inserted by a later hand.

His reasoning appears consistent with something like the following:

• I know that the Comma exists in the Latin tradition.

• I have seen a Greek manuscript where the words appear only as a marginal addition, and I believe that addition is secondary.

• I am now presented with a Greek manuscript in which the Comma appears as part of the continuous text, and I consider that evidence materially different from the Antwerp example.

Whether one agrees with Erasmus’ assessment is a separate question. The important point is that his behaviour shows discernment rather than indiscriminate acceptance.

Reconsidering the Forgery Narrative

Some modern accounts go further and suggest that Erasmus was effectively deceived by a manuscript specially prepared in order to force him into including the Comma.

Such a theory raises an obvious historical question.

Why would the same scholar who had already encountered and rejected a marginal Greek witness because he regarded it as a later addition suddenly abandon all critical judgment when examining another manuscript presented during a heated controversy?

By this point Erasmus:

• was thoroughly familiar with the Latin evidence;

• had already examined Greek evidence relating to the Comma;

• had publicly defended his editorial decisions against critics such as Edward Lee;

• and had shown himself willing to reject evidence that he believed to be secondary.

This does not eliminate the possibility that the British manuscript was recent or produced for apologetic purposes. Nor does it prove that Erasmus’ evaluation was correct. It does, however, make the simplistic claim that he was naively “conned” far less convincing.

A More Plausible Historical Reconstruction

The cumulative evidence points to a more careful and methodical Erasmus than is often portrayed.

He did not include the Comma merely because he found it somewhere in Greek. In fact, he had already declined to do exactly that when confronted with the Antwerp marginal reading.

His eventual decision to print the Comma therefore appears to reflect a qualitative judgment about the evidence before him rather than a desperate desire to find any Greek support whatsoever.

Whether modern scholars ultimately agree with that judgment is beside the point. The historical record suggests that Erasmus exercised editorial discrimination and believed the British manuscript carried a different evidential weight than the Antwerp marginal annotation.

Consequently, the oft-repeated claim that Erasmus simply accepted the first Greek manuscript containing the Comma—or that he was easily deceived into including it—fails to account for his own documented conduct and stated reasoning.

Erasmus believed that the reading of these three are one from verse 8 supported the Arian position and stated that the same argument could be made regarding verse 7 

Erasmus believed that the wording of 1 John 5:7 did not assert one of nature but one of testimony

Now, the Spanish edition added a scholium from the decretals, attributed
to St Thomas. It declares that in the testimony of the Spirit, the water and the
blood in carefully-copied codices, the phrase “and these three are one” is not
added, and that it seems that this was added by those who favoured the Arian
teaching. For if it were added here, it could only be explained as referring to the consensus
of their testimony, for Spirit, water and blood cannot be said to be one in nature;
and from this it would follow that the preceding statement too, concerning the
Father, Son and Holy Spirit, “and these three are one,” could be understood as
indicating the consensus of their love and witness. Now with these words John
asserted that the essence of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is the same.

So far we have dealt with what can be inferred from the verse. But here we
are clearly dealing with the reliability of witness, not about the substance of
persons. For if this word “one” in many other places means “agreement” rather
than “the unity of an individual,” what is so strange in our interpreting it here in a
similar way? How often do we read in either Testament “one heart,” “one spirit
and soul,” “one voice,” “one mind,” when this signifies agreement and mutual
love? Since this trope is so familiar in the Scriptures, what is stopping us from
assuming the same meaning here? In Jn 10, the Lord says: “The Father and I are
one.”1
How is an Arian going to be vanquished by this evidence, unless you tell
him that the word “one” in the Scriptures can only mean “what is of the same
substance”? Now, since the Scriptures provide innumerable passages which teach
that it can be understood as referring to consent or mutual love, I fail to see how
far this will help to confirm the opinions of the orthodox, or to repress the
stubbornness of the heretic.However, that Christ is speaking there of the
concord he has with the Father can be inferred with a high degree of likelihood,
since he is not referring to his statement about being one with the Father, but to
the fact that he called God his Father, and was thus in an extraordinary fashion
calling himself the Son of God. And in Jn 17 he says, “Holy Father, protect them
in your name whom you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one.
And again, “that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you,
may they also be in us.”1
This entire passage deals with the consensus of love and
witness, and whether we want to or not,2
we are compelled to interpret that word
“one” in some other way than referring it to the divine persons. Therefore, this
passage does not constrain us, unless the authority of the orthodox and a
prescription of the church compels us by teaching that this passage cannot be
interpreted any other way. For it is pious always to submit our thinking to the
judgment of the church as soon as we have heard it make a clear statement. But in
the meantime it is not wicked to investigate the truth, though without causing
contention, as God reveals different things to different people.

Erasmus annotations

He also argued that it better suited the Arians and rather tha strengthening the faith it made it more suspect.

But imagine that the reading is not in
dispute, since what is said about the testimony of the water, blood and Spirit
being one refers not to an identity of nature, but to an agreement in testimony,
do we really think that the Arians would be so stupid as not to apply the same
interpretation to the Father, the Word and the Spirit here, especially since
orthodox writers give this same interpretation to a similar passage in the Gospels,
since Augustine does not reject this interpretation in his diatribe Against the
Arian Maximinus, and since an interlinear fragment of the Glossa ordinaria
interprets this very place in this way? “[The three] are one,” says the Glossa, “that
is: testifying about the same thing.”2
Satisfying ourselves with little phrases like
that does not amount to strengthening the faith, but rendering it more suspect.Perhaps it might be preferable to conduct ourselves in pious pursuits in order to
be united with God, than to engage in hair-splitting debates about how the Son is
distinguished from the Father, and how the Spirit differs from them both. I for
one do not see how the view rejected by the Arians3
can be upheld except with
the help of speculative reasoning. But finally, since this entire passage is obscure,
it does not have much power to refute heretics.

Erasmus was given the reading of Codex Vaticanus in this passage.

Additionally, Paolo Bombace, a learned and honest man, made a literal transcription of this passage at my request from a very ancient codex in the Vatican Library, in which the testimony of the Father, Word and Spirit is not mentioned.3 (If the authority of antiquity impresses you, the book was extremely old; if you are impressed by the authority of the pope, it is his library from which this witness was sought.
Erasmus Annotations. 

Dan Wallace continues on and refers to the “9” late manuscripts vs hundreds of manuscripts, ranging in date from the 4th Century.  

Nevertheless, it can safely be said that there are no GNT MSS which have their comma dated to the first millennium AD. Further, nine late MSS vs. hundreds of MSS, ranging in date from the fourth century on, is hardly a confidence builder that the comma is authentic.
Wallace on the Comma Johanneum at 1 John 5.7 (thegospelcoalition.org)

This statement is actually rather deceiving. When it comes to these 262 manuscripts that support the non inclusion there are, in fact, only 4 that date prior to the 6th Century.  

These are: 

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

All of these come from just one geographical area, Egypt.  

We have no Greek manuscript witness at all that precedes the 4th Century so the manuscript evidence starts quite late. 

Also worthy of note is that of the 127 existent Papyri today, not one of those papyri contains this part of the text. We have 2 Papyri that contain 1 John, P9 from the 3rd Century and P74 from the 7th century, but neither contain this passage so they are neither a witness for or against the reading of the KJV. We therefore do not have any papyri that witness to this verse at all either for the inclusion or the exclusion of the words. 

So the exclusion of the verse might not be as well attested to as it may seem through the assertion by Dan Wallace. .  We simply do not have an abundance of early Greek witnesses to this part of 1 John 5.

The earliest manuscript that we have that includes this section of 1 John 5 is Codex Vaticanus. Codex Vaticanus does not contain the verse as it is found in the KJV. However, this manuscript comes to us at least 200-250 years after 1 John had been written. If anyone has ever read any of my writings regarding this manuscript they will know that I argue that this manuscript, like other manuscripts of Alexandrian origin are corrupt. I won’t go into detail again here.

Now its also worth noting, since it is most often not stated,  that even though Codex Vaticanus does not include the verse as found in the KJV, it does have an Umlaut (a triple dot) at the point of 1 John 5:7. Umlauts indicate that there is a textual variant known by the scribe.

Below is an image of Codex Vatican and the Umlaut

The dating of these umulets is in debate, some arguing for an early date while others have dated them much later. 

When it comes to Codex Alexandrinus when we get to 1 John 5:7 we note that there is a space between verse 7 and verse 8. `This is a clear indication that the scribe was aware of a textual variant at this point of the text. 

It must also be noted that none of the 3 main codices, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus agree with each other on the rendering of this verse either.

We must also look at the list of manuscripts that are asserted attest to the exclusion of the passage. 

The list includes 

Manuscripts Produced Before the 700s:  01, 03, 02, 048, 0296

Manuscripts Produced in the 700s-800s:  018, 020, 025, 049, 0142, 1424, 1862, 1895, 2464

Manuscripts Assigned to the 900s:  044, 056, 82, 93, 175, 181, 221, 307, 326, 398, 450, 454, 456, 457, 602, 605, 619, 627, 832, 920, 1066, 1175, 1720, 1739, 1829, 1836, 1837, 1841, 1845, 1851, 1871, 1874, 1875, 1880, 1891, 2125, 2147,     

Manuscripts Assigned to the 1000s:  35, 36, 2, 42, 43, 81, 104, 131, 133, 142, 177, 250, 302, 325, 312, 314, 424, 436, 451, 458, 459,   462, 464, 465, 466, 491, 506, 517, 547, 606, 607, 617, 623, 624, 635, 638, 639, 641, 699, 796,   901, 910, 919, 945, 1162, 1243, 1244, 1270, 1311, 1384, 1521, 1668, 1724, 1730, 1735, 1738, 1828, 1835, 1838, 1846, 1847, 1849, 1854, 1870, 1888, 2138, 2191, 2344, 2475, 2587, 2723,   2746     

Manuscripts Assigned to the 1100s:  3, 38, 1, 57, 88, 94, 97, 103, 105, 110, 180, 203, 226, 256, 319, 321, 323, 330, 337, 365, 431, 440, 442, 452, 618, 620, 622, 625, 632, 637, 656, 720, 876, 917, 922, 927, 1058, 1115, 1127, 1241, 1245, 1315, 1319, 1359, 1360, 1448, 1490, 1505, 1573, 1611, 1646, 1673, 1718, 1737, 1740, 1743, 1752, 1754, 1850, 1853, 1863, 1867, 1868, 1872, 1885, 1889, 1893, 1894, 1897, 2127, 2143, 2186, 2194, 2289, 2298, 2401, 2412, 2541, 2625, 2712, 2718, 2736, 2805     

Manuscripts Assigned to the 1200s:  4, 5, 6, 51, 204, 206, 172, 141, 218, 234, 263, 327, 328, 378, 383, 384, 390, 460, 468, 469, 479, 483, 496, 592, 601, 614, 643, 665, 757, 912, 914, 915, 941, 999, 1069, 1070, 1072, 1094, 1103, 1107, 1149, 1161, 1242, 1251, 1292, 1297, 1352, 1398, 1400, 1404, 1456, 1501, 1509, 1523, 1563, 1594, 1595, 1597, 1609, 1642, 1719, 1722, 1727, 1728, 1731, 1736, 1758, 1780, 1827, 1839, 1842, 1843, 1852, 1855, 1857, 1858, 1860, 1864, 1865, 1873, 2180, 2374, 2400, 2404, 2423, 2483, 2502, 2558, 2627, 2696       

Manuscripts Assigned to the 1300s:  18, 62, 76, 189, 201, 209, 216, 223, 254, 308, 363, 367, 386, 393, 394, 404, 421, 425, 429, 453,  489, 498, 582, 603, 604, 608, 621, 628, 630, 633, 634, 680, 743, 794, 808, 824, 913, 921, 928, 935, 959, 986, 996, 1022, 1040, 1067, 1075, 1099, 1100, 1102, 1106, 1248, 1249, 1354, 1390, 1409, 1482, 1495, 1503, 1524, 1548, 1598, 1599, 1610, 1618, 1619, 1622, 1637, 1643, 1661, 1678, 1717, 1723, 1725, 1726, 1732, 1733, 1741, 1742, 1744, 1746, 1747, 1753, 1761, 1762, 1765, 1769, 1831, 1832, 1856, 1859, 1866, 1877, 1881, 1882, 1886, 1890, 1892, 1899, 1902, 2080, 2085, 2086,  2197, 2200, 2261, 2279, 2356, 2431, 2466, 2484, 2492, 2494, 2508, 2511, 2527, 2626, 2675, 2705, 2716, 2774, 2777

Manuscripts Assigned to the 1400s:  69, 102, 149, 205, 322, 368, 385, 400, 432, 444, 467, 615, 616, 631, 636, 664, 801, 1003, 1105, 1247, 1250, 1367, 1405, 1508, 1626, 1628, 1636, 1649, 1656, 1729, 1745, 1750, 1751, 1757, 1763, 1767, 1830, 1876, 1896, 2131, 2221, 2288, 2352, 2495, 2523, 2554, 2652, 2653, 2691, 2704

Manuscripts Assigned to the 1500s and Later:  90, 296, 522, 1702, 1704, 1749, 1768, 1840, 1844, 1861, 2130, 2218, 2255, 2378, 2501, 2516, 2544, 1101, 1721, 1748, 1869, 1903, 2243, 2674, 2776, 2473, 1104

However, while all these manuscripts do not contain the passage, the inclusion of some of these manuscripts is disingenuous and they give a totally false narrative that makes it appear that 1 John 5:7 is not found in many more manuscripts than it actually is not. 

Manuscript 048 is a Palimpset manuscript (double). This means the original text, the Biblical text has been removed and written over. This has happened at least twice in this manuscript. It has also had many of its pages cut and resized. The original text is illegible in almost all places. The foliio that contains 1 John 5:5-11 has been cut halfway through the first column. It is not possible to tell whether or not this manuscript originally contained the comma or not. 

Manuscript 025 is a supposed palimpset manuscript. The Biblical under text was removed and replaced with Euthanlius which is given the index GA 1834. This manuscript is a dubious witness to the exclusion of the comma. The only transcript of the text of this manuscript comes from Tichendof who found the manuscript in 1862. The manuscript itself is held in a museum in Moscow. The manuscript has not been examined and the museum do not recognise the under text as 025. There are no images of the manuscripts under text. At this present time there is no way of verifying what the under text read and thus it cannot be used as evidence for the exclusion of the comma as we cannot verify its exclusion in the manuscript. 

On the text of this manuscript, scholar Tommy Wasserman wrote:

• [Wasserman] Finally, a funny episode I had with this library some years ago. I was trying to get access to Codex P 025 instead of relying on Tischendorf’s old collation. The codex is a palimpsest and the upper writing is Greg.-Aland 1834. Neither of them was available on microfilm at the INTF in Münster. However, my predecessor Carl-Axel Albin, who had studied many MSS and compiled an edition of Jude some 50 years ago had written to the library to order a microfilm of the folios with Jude. They sent him Jude, not from 025 but from 1834. When he wrote them again I don’t think they replied.
• [Wasserman] When I contacted the library about 025, at first they were very pessimistic because they did not have the technical possibilities to produce good images that would reveal the text of 025. But then they sent me a suggestion of a trade. I would get some images and they sent me a list of modern Swedish books that they wanted to acquire for the library. However, I did not proceed further with this. I eventually chose to follow Tischendorf’s collation in this case. • Evangelical Textual Criticism. “Greek New Testament Manuscript on Display at National Library of Russia”,
by Tommy Wasserman at 08:31 MAY 12, 2009.



Manuscript 02 for example does not contain 1 John at all. It only contains the Gosepls and so is not a witness for or against the passage and so should not be included in this list. 

This is also the case with minuscule 36. It is also a manuscript that only contains the gospels and does not contain 1 John. It is thus not a witness against the inclusion of the passage. 

Half of the manuscripts dates 700-800’s are actually commentaries. 
 

Also notice that approx 78% of these manuscripts that do not contain the comma are dates to after the 12th Century. (Highlighted in Red). If using the same argumentation against the manuscripts that include the comma most of these can be excluded. 

Prior to the 700’s we have just a few manuscripts that contain this part of John 1:5. The statement that the verse is not found in the earliest and best manuscripts is an overstatement and in reality is just Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. 

(More study is being done on this manuscript evidence) 

Supporting Evidence

So what is the evidence for the inclusion?

If the verse was originally in the text of 1 John 5 then it is evident that the verse dropped out of the Greek. 

While the verse may well not have Greek manuscript attestation, this is completely the opposite when it comes to the Latin. 

The words are found in almost every single Latin manuscript that we have that contain this part of 1 John 5, Old Latin and the Vulgate produced by Jerome. 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 franka) of the Church. 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 evidential weight within textual riticism, 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.  (we will look at the reasons for why it may have dropped out of the Greek in a bit). 

We have 3 early Old Latin manuscripts that were discovered in the 19th Century that preserve a text that was compilled in the 2nd Century AD. 

Jerome and the Latin Vulgate. 

Well, as already seen Roland Bainton alluded to that having been aware of the inclusion of the words in the Latin Vulgate and therefore it was very likely that Jerome had seen the words in the Greek manuscripts from which he translated into the Latin.  Erasmus was very familiar with the vulgate and so would have known that Jerome included it based on his Greek manuscripts at the time of his translation. Jerome 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. 

Jerome translated the Latin Vulgate from the Greek into Latin including the words over 1100 years before Erasmus would include them in his works.

1 John 5:7  Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in cælo : Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus : et hi tres unum sunt. 8 Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra : spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis : et hi tres unum sunt.”

Furthermore, the very first complete English Bible, made by John Wycliffe in 1380 contained the words in full, 86 years before Erasmus was even born.

John Wycliffe version

1 John 5:7 For three be, that give witnessing in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost [For three be, that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, or Son, and the Holy Ghost]; and these three be one.

The original words

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.
Wycliffe Bible

Of course, Wycliffe used the Latin for his translation not the Greek. 

Some do claim that the Vulgate did not originally include the verse.  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. 

Bruce Metzger makes note that the verse is not contained within the text, however, he fails to make mention of the inclusion of the prologue. 

The fact that Metzger failed to mention the inclusion of the prologue in the manuscript cannot be by mistake, rather by reason of deliberate exclusion. The prologue of Jerome will be looked at later on in this study. 

In the 17th Century French Scholar Père Simon argued that the prologue of Jerome was not authentic. The argument was that the prologue was an 8th or 9th Century creation attributed to Jerome. This was taken by many later scholars as being fact and thus many rejected the authorship of Jerome. At the time, when the argument was first put forth, the earliest vulgate manuscripts dated to the 8th or 9th Century. Brooke Foss Westcot stated that the prologue was forged in order to give the verse authenticity in the latin.


This theory was proven false when the text of Codex Fuldensis was published . The manuscript predated the date of alleged composition by hundreds of years, showing without question the argument false. While some scholars today still believe the prologue as not belonging to Jerome, and some have come up with their own arguments, the foundation of such a theory has been removed. As yet nobody has been able to successfully argue who added this prologue in the name of Jerome if it was not Jerome himself. 

The manuscript has an undeniable providence. It was created by Victor of Capua.  Ernst Ranke Published the text in 1868.  The manuscript removed the objection that the prologue was not original to Jerome’s vulgate as it demonstrated that the prologue existed long before scholars had postulated that it had. It was at one time believed that the prologue had been added sometime in the 8th or 9th Century. This manuscript pre dated that postulation by 200-300 years. 

Had this not been written by Jerome then whoever added this must have been able to have convinced Victor of its authenticity. 

Furthermore, there is actually more evidence that the prologue is from the pen of Jerome. 

The prologue is a first person account addressed to a lady called Eustochium. 

We have evidence that Eustochium had asked Jerome to create a revision of the Catholic epistles from the Greek after the death of Pope Damasus. The prologue then is Jeromes response to her request. 

We also have a medieval reference to Jerome and the heavenly witnesses.  While this is a later witness it is long before any debate regarding the authenticity of the prologue and thus is not part of that debate. It is an independant witness that should be taken on its own account. 

The 12th Century Regensburg manuscript contains the following extract 

“St Jerome argued that verbal repetition [replicatio] in the [first] Epistle of John–‘And there are three that bear witness, the Father, the Word and the Spirit’–was established as certain. By contrast, St Augustine prescribed that it should be removed, on the basis of the Apostle’s meaning and the authority of the Greek”

This is actually evidence that the very thing Jerome said was happening regarding the removal of the verse, was also done by Augustine. This then shows that at the time of Augustine, the verse had been removed in the Greek. 

It should be asked as to why someone in the 12th Century placed on the mouth of Augustine these words when no debate over the verse was taking place at that time. It is highly improbable that this was made up for reasons of supporting the prologue or the inclusion of the verse. 

It would seem that most scholars miss or ignore these extra witnesses to the authenticity of the prologue.  

Erasmus makes note of the statement by Jerome regarding the removal of the verse and the prologue 

We have repeated Jerome’s words to this point,
from which it is clear that Jerome was not complaining about Greek codices,
simply about those who translated the Greek into Latin. But precisely that which
Jerome complains was omitted is now absent from the Greek manuscripts,
whereas it is present in the Latin manuscripts, though not all of them
Annotations

We see that Eramsus says that it was the Latin copies from which 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. They used a verse as support that must have also been known 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 Vulgate uncontested as authoritative scripture by those Bishops.

The evidence of the La Cava Bible. 

The La Cava Bible is a Latin manuscript produced in the early 9th Century, probably around 825AD in Spain. Despite its rather late production date, in relation to the witness of the Comma at least, it is generally accepted that the text in the manuscript is a reflection of a much earlier Latin text. This manuscript contains the Comma within its text, although it has the earthly witnesses preceding the heavenly witnesses. (verses 6,8, 7) This is typical of an old Latin style that put the earthly witnesses before the heavenly witnesses) The Old Latin dates back to the 2nd Century and was translated from the Greek. Thus the strong early Latin witness to the comma echoes a Greek text that preceded the council of Nicea and the Arian controversy.  

While this in itself is good evidence for of the early existence of the Comma within the text,  the  most important feature of this manuscript as supporting evidence for the comma is actually found in the marginal notes. 

The Manuscript includes the prologue of Jerome. 

Ambrose  in the 4th Century quotes the Comma (verses 6 and 8 but not 7) The Latin that uses is the same as we find in the La cava Bible.  Both Ambrose and the La Cava Bible have a rare reading “Jesus is the truth” in verse 6 rather than the spirit is truth. 

In the marginal notes we see 2 references to Arius (both are in the present tense). It is highly probable  that The La Cava Bible contains a text that dates to the Arian controversy and records a statement regarding 1 John 5:7 (let Arius read this). The second statement says “and Arius calls him the first creature). 

The text contained within the La Cava Bible is a text that existed at least at the time of Arius which predates both Vaticanus and Sinaticus. 
 

Early church writers attestation. 

Just a few of the people from Church history that attest the authenticity of this verse even before Jerome are Cyprian – 250 AD, Athanasius 350 A.D., Priscillian -382 AD. Varimadum 380

Cyprian of Carthage (c. 250 A.D). — (Latin) 
“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”. 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. 

If Cyprian did quote the verse, this is evidence that the verse was at least a very early addition if it was added. It must then be explained HOW, when and why this verse was added, all of which really has no answer. Where did Cyrin get the verse from? Was it from the Latin that must have already existed at his time or from the Greek? If the verse was added at some point into the Latin, this must have been one very early, we must ask the questions at what point was this done. How was it done and for what purposes? Some have speculated that the verse was added into the margin of the Latin and later was moved from the margin into the main text at some point. This has not been shown through evidence, it is a hypothesis based on the preconceived belief that the verse was not original and so somehow must have entered the Latin. Cyprians usage and the Old Latin demonstrates that this must have been very early on in the textual history. It in no way explains why or by whom it was done. It is pure conjecture based on a necessity rather than evidence based. 

The Trinitarian argument

It is often argued, especially by many Unitarians that the verse was added by Trinitarians to be a proof text for the trinity. This is most often stated without any actual evidence to support it. Many that argue this focus on Erasmus as if the verse originated with Erasmus. They seem to ignore, or are unaware of the evidence for the verse prior to Erasmus. They usually offer no argument for who, when, where or how this verse was added, they simply assert that it was. The fall back evidence is almost certainly that Erasmus included the verse because he was presurred and that the earliest Greek manuscripts do not contain the verse. This is again certainly a simple regurgitation rather than any real deep study that they themselves have done. I have asked many Unitarians the questions of who added the verse and when was it added only to be given no actual answer only the regurgitation of the above statements regarding Erasmus and the oldest Greek manuscripts. This of course does not answer the questions. In reality they have no answer as to when the verse was added only that it WAS added by trinitarians …evidently at some point….

Cyprian Frequently Uses Johannine Logos Theology

Cyprian inherited Latin theological language from Tertullian, where:

• Sermo (“Word”)
• Verbum (“Word”)
• Filius (“Son”)

can overlap conceptually.

In pre-Nicene theology, the “Word” is understood to be the Son.

So substituting “Son” for “Word” is not especially surprising in doctrinal exposition.

Examples from Cyprian

1. Cyprian identifies Christ as the Word

In Testimonia ad Quirinum II.3:

Quod Christus sit Verbum Dei.

(“That Christ is the Word of God.”)

He then cites Johannine material proving Christ is the Verbum.

So for Cyprian:

• Christ = the Word
• the Son = Christ

The conceptual equivalence is explicit.

Cyprian regularly uses phrases like:

• scriptum est (“it is written”)
• sicut scriptum est (“as it is written”)
• Dominus dicit (“the Lord says”)

to introduce passages he clearly regards as biblical authority.

And scholars universally recognize these as Scripture citations.

Examples of Cyprian Using Scriptum Est

1. Matthew 5:16

Cyprian writes:

Scriptum est enim…

followed by a recognizable quotation of Matthew.

No dispute there — clearly Scripture citation.

2. Proverbs citations

In multiple treatises, Cyprian introduces Wisdom literature with:

scriptum est

Again, universally acknowledged as biblical quotation.

3. Pauline citations

Cyprian repeatedly introduces Paul with:

et iterum scriptum est

or

apostolus dicit

These are formal citation markers.

1. De Habitu Virginum 2

Cyprian writes:

Scriptum est enim: “Deus superbis resistit, humilibus autem dat gratiam.”

Translation:

“For it is written: ‘God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.’”

This is a quotation of:

• James 4:6
• also echoing Proverbs 3:34.

No scholar doubts this is a biblical citation.

2. Ad Quirinum (Testimonia) I.16

Cyprian writes:

Item in Evangelio scriptum est: “Vos estis sal terrae.”

Translation:

“Likewise in the Gospel it is written: ‘You are the salt of the earth.’”

This is clearly:

• Matthew 5:13.

Again:

• formal citation formula,
• direct Scripture quotation.

3. Epistle 63 (On the Cup of the Lord)

Cyprian says:

Nam scriptum est: “Calix benedictionis cui benedicimus…”

Translation:

“For it is written: ‘The cup of blessing which we bless…’”

This is:

• 1 Corinthians 10:16.

Universally recognized as a Pauline quotation.

4. De Bono Patientiae 15

Cyprian writes:

Sicut scriptum est: “Vir patiens multum prudens.”

Translation:

“As it is written: ‘A patient man is greatly prudent.’”

This is from:

• Proverbs.

Again:

• explicit biblical appeal.

Cyprian writes:

Scriptum est enim: “Non in solo pane vivit homo…”

Translation:

“For it is written: ‘Man does not live by bread alone…’”

This is:

• Matthew 4:4 / Deuteronomy 8:3.

Clearly scriptural.

Cyprian shows that the Latin included the verse long before Jerome translated the Vulgate and before any manuscript that we have available today. 

Clement of Alexandria gives an allusion to the verse, even though he does not use the word, rather son, he states that Father, son and Holy spirit being witnesses,  it is only in 1 John 5:7 that we see all 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)

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. 

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

Tertullian also is attestation to the verse in the early Latin. 

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)

Priscillian 382AD

“Sicut Ioannes ait: Tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in terra: aqua caro et sanguis; et haec tria in unum sunt et tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in caelo: pater, verbum et spiritus; et haec tria unum sunt in Christo Iesu.” (Liber Apologeticus, I.4)

“As John says, “There are three that give testimony in earth: the water, the flesh and the blood; and these three are one and there are three that give testimony in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Spirit; and these three are one in Christ 


Priscillian quoted verse 8 also but it is likely that his version was corrupt at this point as he refers to the water, the body and the blood. 

Senator Cassiodorus (485-585AD) 

Cassiodorus started a monastery and created a library which he worked with Pope Agapetus I to put together, collecting the works of the Church fathers and translating them into Latin.  In fact, some of the works of the early church fathers only exist today in this form, the translation from the original Greek writing into Latin. 

Cassiodorus quotes the Comma. 

“Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God, &c.” He who believeth Jesus to be God, is born of God the Fathers; he without doubt is faithful, and he who loves the Fathers, loves also the Christ who is born of him. Now we so love him, when we keep his commandments, which to just minds are not heavy : but they rather overcome the world, when they believe in him who created the world. To which thing witness on earth three mysteries, the water, the blood, and the spirit, which were fulfilled, we read, in the passion of the Lord; but in heaven the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit ; and these three is one God.
(Cassiodorus, Historia tripartita Commentary on the Epistles. 1 John 5)

Cassiodorus translated a text by Clement of Alexandria where Clement refers to the spirit, water and blood, which is found in 1 John 5:8 


• He says, “This is He who came by water and blood;” and again,
“For there are three that bear witness, the spirit,” which is life, “and the water,”
which is regeneration and faith, “and the blood,” which is knowledge; and
“these three are one.” For in the Saviour are those saving virtues,
and life itself exists in His own Son. (I John 5:6-8)
• Clement : Adumbrationes, From the Latin Translation of Cassiodorus.
<www.tertullian.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-74.htm>.

This text was likely translated by Epiphanius Scholasticus. 

Erasmus stated in his apologia against Edward Lee that Lee had shown from Epiphanius that the Epistle of John had been shortened. 

Lee says he proved out of Epiphanius that the Epistle of John has been shortened;
Erasmus Apologia Edward Lee. 

The Carpocratians, however, will cite the reading that is in their favour, and Epiphanius
shows that it existed in this form. 
Erasmus Apologia Edward Lee

But also we have more evidence from people such as Fulgentius in the 5th Century 


[De Trinitate ad Felicem] See, in short you have it that the Father is one, the Son another, and the Holy Spirit
another, in Person, each is other, but in nature they are not other. In this regard He says:”The Father and I, we
are one.”He teaches us that”one”refers to Their nature, and”we are”to Their persons. In like manner it is
said:”There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit; and these three
are one.”Let Sabellius hear”we are”[plural], let him hear”three”, and let him believe that there are three Persons.
Let him not blaspheme in his sacrilegious heart by saying that the Father is the same in Himself as the Son is the
same in Himself and as the Holy Spirit is the same in Himself, as if in some way He could beget Himself, or in
some way proceed from Himself. Even in created natures it is never able to be found that something is able to
beget itself. Let also Arius hear one; and let him not say that the Son is of a different nature, if one cannot be said
of that, the nature of which is different.”
(Fulgentius, On the Trinity, chapter 4; Translated by William A. Jurgens,
1970, vol 3, p. 291-292)

[Responsio contra Arianos] In the Father, therefore, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, we
acknowledge unity of substance, but dare not confound the persons. For St. John the apostle,
testifieth saying, “There are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the
Spirit, and these three are one.” Which also the blessed martyr Cyprian, in his epistle de unitate
Ecclesiae (Unity of the Church), confesseth, saying, Who so breaketh the peace of Christ, and concord,
acteth against Christ: whoso gathereth elsewhere beside the Church, scattereth. And that he might
shew, that the Church of the one God is one, he inserted these testimonies, immediately from the
scriptures; The Lord said, “I and the Father are one.” And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it is
written, ‘And these three are one.’ (1 John 5:7).” In the book on the Lord’s Prayer as well, to show that the Trinity is of one divinity and does not have any separateness among itself, he mentioned Daniel and
the three boys who would say a prayer every three hours. Thus, by the course of three hours and the
service of one prayer, he evidently showed that the Trinity is one God. We, therefore, do not worship
one God, [consisting] of three parts; but retaining without beginning, of the perfect and eternal Father,
not unequal in power, and equal in nature ; and we also confess, that the Holy Spirit is no other than
God, neither different from the Father, nor the Son, nor confounded in the Son, nor in the Father.
(Fulgentius, Against the Arians; Translated by Thomas Hartwell Horne, 1825; Horne, “IV. Sect. V. On
the First General Epistle of John” in Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy
Scriptures, 1825, vol 4, p. 448)

[Contra Fabianus] For man, being the image of God, is not limited to only one person of the divine, but of the
whole of the Trinity. From the holy writings are shown in the Trinity and the nature of the unit. The Trinity in
Persons, and the Unity of Essence [of the Godhead] proved from the Holy Scripture. …This also the holy Apostle
[St. Paul] confirms: Who, in respect to the distinction of persons [in the Godhead] syas,”One God the Father, of
whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him; and that
the faithful are built together for a habitation of God through the Spirit.”Shewing also that the one God is a Trinity,
he adds,”O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God!”And a little afterwards,”For of him,
and through him, and in him, are all things : to him be glory forever.”But the holy Apostle St. John [proceeds
further, for he] plainly says,”And the three are one”; which text concerning the Father, the Son [Filio] and
the Holy Ghost we alleged, as we did before when ye required a reason from us [our belief]. (Fulgentius,
Contra Fabianus, Fragmentum 21; Translated by George Travis, Letters to Edward Gibbon, 3rd edition, 1794, p.
38-39)

The usage of 1 John 5:7 in disputes is not contested by his opponents. This shows that not only was the verse in his own text that he used, but the verse was also in the text of those he was in dispute with. 

Thomas Aquinas, Stephanus, John Calvin,  Theodore Beza, John Owen and John Wesley to name just a few more.

Theodore the Studite (759-826 AD) (Greek) 

An allusion to the comma is made in the epigrams 

It is evident that there were Greek manuscripts available during the time of John Calvin that are no longer available to us today.

John Calvin himself stated:

“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

Robert Stephens, better known s Stephanus produced 4 editions of the TR, 1546, 1549, 1550 and 1551. He included the words of the Comma in all 4 editions, 
Theodor Beza further produced 5 editions, 1565, 1582, 1588, 1598 and 1611. The comma is found in all 5 editions. 

Both Stephanus and Beza continued on the work of Erasmus but both were considered exceptional theologians in their own right, between them creating 9 updated TR editions all which contained the comma. For them to have not removed the comma in any of their editions they must have been convinced of the originality of the Comma, (in fact, Stephanus in his 3rd edition of the Greek NT in the margin is said to have stated that 7 of the 15/16 manuscripts that he had in his possession contained the Johannine Comma).* It must be noted that this is almost certainly an incorrect “fact” that was misapplied to Stephanus that has remained since.*

If this is correct then this shows likely evidence of manuscripts that contained the comma that no longer exist, either they have been lost, destroyed or have decayed away……again it must be reiterated this is certainly not a true fact. 

The printed New Testaments of the Greek Orthodox Church contain the words. The Greek Orthodox Church would not have based the inclusion of the words on anything other than the inclusion of the words in the Greek manuscripts. Being that they were the keepers of the Greek they just would not have based the inclusion of the words on the fact the words were found in the Latin.

They are also found in early Latin manuscripts. “r “ from the 5th century and “q” which is dates 5th-7th century. It is also included in “i” again from the 5th century. We  have many latin manuscripts that contain the longer reading.

GNOSTIC text…

An allusion is found within the Gnostic text, the Acts of John (dated 2nd Century) 

Glory be to thee, Father.

And we, going about in a ring, answered him: Amen.

Glory be to thee, Word: Glory be to thee, Grace. Amen.

Glory be to thee, Spirit: Glory be to thee, Holy One:

Glory be to thy glory. Amen.

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

Although Jerome attested to the verses witness to the Catholic faith we can clearly see that Jerome believed the wording of the verse to have not been added but being removed, through intention and not through mistake, from scripture. This is clear evidence that the wording of the verse was not only known but also considered scripture. 

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

Eusebius, in a writing entitled Ecclesiastical Theology” III, 4-6, which is a writing against Marcellus of Ancyra,  makes a claim that the “the statement that the three (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) are one is also Sabellian.”

And thus once again the statement that the three (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) are one is also Sabellian. Marcellus also expressed this same opinion and somewhere wrote: “For it is impossible for three existing hypostases to be united in a monad unless earlier the Triad should have its beginning from a monad. For St. Paul said that those things which in no way belong to the unity in God will be brought together in a monad; for only the Word and the Spirit belong to the unity in God. …

Now, while Eusebius does not specifically quote the Comma here, the wording father, son and holy spirit are one is indeed found only within the comma so it must at least be a possibility that he was attesting to the comma.  

So, it would seem that it was believed, at the time of Eusebius anyway that the comma was deemed and being used by the Sabellians as proof of their doctrine. So along with the attestation that the passage was being removed for theological reasons, it is at least plausible to conjecture that the passage was being removed by the church for the theological reasons as being a counter to its usage by Sabellianism.

Erasmus does specifically refer to Cyril and Bede stating that the text that these two people used certainly did not have the comma. 

And lest Lee think that this part has not been omitted by anyone but
heretics, he should know that Cyril brings together many proof-texts, including this passage, against the Arians in the work entitled Thesaurus, book
14, penultimate chapter, but without the part that I have so far not found in
the Greek texts. Is it plausible that he would have omitted this weapon if he
had believed that the apostle had written what Jerome asserts he did?………….. I believe, that the testimony of the three in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, was not in Cyril’s text. Bede291 too, who expounds this passage diligently and explains in detail and with many words the three-fold testimony on earth, makes no mention of the
testimony in heaven of the Father, the Word, and the Spirit. Bede too was
not without skill in the languages or diligence in exploring ancient texts. Indeed he does not even add ‘on earth’;292 he reads only ‘there are three who give testimony.
Erasmus Apologia Edward Lee

Erasmus does point out that the manuscript that he had access to of Bede had a note in the margin regarding the witness of the father, word and Holy spirit. 

Indeed he does not even add ‘on earth’; he reads only ‘there are three who
give testimony.’ In the manuscript provided me from the library of the
Minorites in Antwerp there was a scholion added in the margin in a more
recent hand about the testimony of the Father, the Word, and the Spirit
Erasmus apologia Edward Lee

There is also very clear evidence that not just this verse but this section of 1 John had been tampered with. 1 John 5:6 shows major variants. Between the very manuscripts used to prove that 1 John 5:7 is not authoritative.

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.

There are Syriac versions that contain the comma.

Tremellius translated the Comma from the Greek into the Syriac and placed it in the margin. However, he did also leave a blank space where the verse would fit.

Tremellius’ Grammatica Chaldea Et Syra (1569)

This at least gives rise to Tremellius having doubts regarding the non-authoritative nature of this verse. 

Gutbier’s Lexicon Syricum concerdatntiale omnes N.T. Syriaci 1664 contains the comma also.

It is very possible that there were manuscripts of the  Syriac that did agree with the TR and the KJV

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.

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  by Complutense University in Alcalá de Henares, Spain in 1514 (first published in 1522). 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. 

Greek:

7 ότι τρεις εισίν οι μαρτυρούντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατὴρ καὶ ὁ λόγος καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσι. 8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οι μαρτυρούντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς το πνεύμα και το ύδωρ και το αίμα (‘omits’ καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσι)

Latin:

7 Quonium tres sunt oooo ooo qui testimonium dant in celo: pater: verbum: et spiritus sanctus: & hi ooo oo tres unum sunt. 8 Et tres sunt qui oooo testimoniuʒ dant in terra: Spiritus agua & sanguis.

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 that contained the verse that were not utilised by Erasmus. It is very likely that Erasmus utilised the reading of the Complutensian Polyglot in his final edition including the definite article before father, word and Spirit. 

Footnote in the Complutensian Polyglot regarding 1 John 5:7 

Saint Thomas, in his exposition of the second Decretal concerning the Most High Trinity and the Catholic faith, treating of this passage, ‘There are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit,’ in opposition to the Abbot Jochim, uses precisely the following language: — And to teach the unity of the three persons it is subjoined, And these three are one; which is said on account of their unity of essence. But Joachim, wishing perversely to refer this to a unity of affection and agreement, alleged the text that follows it. For it is immediately subjoined, And there are three that bear witness on earth, namely, the Spirit, the water, and the blood. And in some books it is added, And these three are one. But this is not contained in the true copies, but is said to have been added by the Arian heretics to prevent the text that precedes from being correctly understood as relating to the unity of essence of the three persons.’
footnote

It should also be noted that Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros, who funded the project had twice tried to acquire the services of Erasmus to take part in the work. 

Furthermore, Emmanuel (Manuel) Calecas who died in 1410 AD, writing a commentary in Greek includes the words of 1 John 5:7 almost identical to that found in Scriveners text. 

(…) Τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, (………..) ὁ Πατὴρ, ὁ Λόγος καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα (τὸ) ἅγιον. Calecas
(ὅτι) τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες (εν τῷ οὐρανῷ) ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· Scrivener

Also, Joseph Bryennios, who lived between 1350-1432 AD included the words as found in the KJV in his Greek commentary (he uses Spirit Holy rather than Holy Spirit). 

 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατὴρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι· Bryennios

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

Both texts include the articles. 

So we see the verse used in Greek commentary with near KJV readings 100+ years before Erasmus. 

In the 17th Century, Cyril Lucaris wanted all of the people to have a Greek Bible that they could read. He wanted to create a printed edition that contained Biblical Greek but also modern Greek. He was the Greek Patriarch of Alexandria (Cyril III) and then later he became the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople (Cyril I.) 

The Greek orthodox church was against this idea as they did not want the Bible printed in ordinary Greek. The Church destroyed the printing presses that Cyril had purchased in order to create his print. Cyril fled to England and later finished the Bible which was printed by Geneva in 1637. The Bible contained the Comma, including articles. 

It was the intension of Cyril to produce a Bible that the common person could read and understand. His Bible included the comma which would have been rather strange if the verse was not considered by the Greek orthodox church as scripture. 

In response to the translation the Greek Orthodox and the Eastern churches united to create a confession asserting that the reformation was a heresy and to state the doctrines that were believed. The verse was included within the confession. 

Sometime around 1700 Ad the Greek Orthodox church in Romania set up printing presses (it must be noted that the eastern church did not have printing presses until the 17th Century as opposed to the western which had them around the 15th century.) 

The church in response to the heresy of the reformation wanted to print something from their Library to help demonstrate that the reformation was a heresy. They printed a work called the Panoplia written by Euthymius early in the 12th Century.
The work corelated the writings of Early Church fathers. One such was a writing of Cyril of Alexandria from the 5th Century. In the writing of Cyril of Alexandria the heavenly and earthly witnesses can be found, with articles. This was a counter reformation argument, which used the manuscripts of the orthodox church of a writing that was produced in the 12th Century that included a work from the 5th Century. The fact that the comma was present is a vital witness to the authenticity and demonstrates that the verse was in works recorded in Greek long before Erasmus. 
 

4th Lateran council 1215 

At this council the doctrine of the trinity was discussed regarding the position of  Joachim of Florence against that of the traditional view held by Peter Lombard .  The council, which was attended by hundreds of Bishops sided with Lombard. 

The council printed the verse in both Latin and Greek. 

The Second Decretal of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215)

We therefore condemn and reprove that small book or treatise which abbot Joachim published against master Peter Lombard concerning the unity or essence of the Trinity, in which he calls Peter Lombard a heretic and a madman because he said in his Sentences, “For there is a certain supreme reality which is the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit, and it neither begets nor is begotten nor does it proceed”. He asserts from this that Peter Lombard ascribes to God not so much a Trinity as a quaternity, that is to say three persons and a common essence as if this were a fourth person. Abbot Joachim clearly protests that there does not exist any reality which is the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit-neither an essence nor a substance nor a nature — although he concedes that the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit are one essence, one substance and one nature. He professes, however, that such a unity is not true and proper but rather collective and analogous, in the way that many persons are said to be one people and many faithful one church, according to that saying : Of the multitude of believers there was one heart and one mind, and Whoever adheres to God is one spirit with him; again He who plants and he who waters are one, and all of us are one body in Christ; and again in the book of Kings, My people and your people are one. In support of this opinion he especially uses the saying which Christ uttered in the gospel concerning the faithful : I wish, Father, that they may be one in us, just as we are one, so that they may be made perfect in one. For, he says, Christ’s faithful are not one in the sense of a single reality which is common to all. They are one only in this sense, that they form one church through the unity of the catholic faith, and finally one kingdom through a union of indissoluble charity. Thus we read in the canonical letter of John : For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father and the Word and the holy Spirit, and these three are one; and he immediately adds, And the three that bear witness on earth are the spirit, water and blood, and the three are one, according to some manuscripts.

We, however, with the approval of this sacred and universal council, believe and confess with Peter Lombard that there exists a certain supreme reality, incomprehensible and ineffable, which truly is the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit, the three persons together and each one of them separately. Therefore in God there is only a Trinity, not a quaternity, since each of the three persons is that reality — that is to say substance, essence or divine nature-which alone is the principle of all things, besides which no other principle can be found. This reality neither begets nor is begotten nor proceeds; the Father begets, the Son is begotten and the holy Spirit proceeds. Thus there is a distinction of persons but a unity of nature. Although therefore the Father is one person, the Son another person and the holy Spirit another person, they are not different realities, but rather that which is the Father is the Son and the holy Spirit, altogether the same; thus according to the orthodox and catholic faith they are believed to be consubstantial. For the Father, in begetting the Son from eternity, gave him his substance, as he himself testifies : What the Father gave me is greater than all. It cannot be said that the Father gave him part of his substance and kept part for himself since the Father’s substance is indivisible, inasmuch as it is altogether simple. Nor can it be said that the Father transferred his substance to the Son, in the act of begetting, as if he gave it to the Son in such a way that he did not retain it for himself; for otherwise he would have ceased to be substance. It is therefore clear that in being begotten the Son received the Father’s substance without it being diminished in any way, and thus the Father and the Son have the same substance. Thus the Father and the Son and also the holy Spirit proceeding from both are the same reality.

When, therefore, the Truth prays to the Father for those faithful to him, saying I wish that they may be one in us just as we are one, this word one means for the faithful a union of love in grace, and for the divine persons a unity of identity in nature, as the Truth says elsewhere, You must be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect {2} , as if he were to say more plainly, You must be perfect in the perfection of grace, just as your Father is perfect in the perfection that is his by nature, each in his own way. For between creator and creature there can be noted no similarity so great that a greater dissimilarity cannot be seen between them. If anyone therefore ventures to defend or approve the opinion or doctrine of the aforesaid Joachim on this matter, let him be refuted by all as a heretic. By this, however, we do not intend anything to the detriment of the monastery of Fiore, which Joachim founded, because there both the instruction is according to rule and the observance is healthy; especially since Joachim ordered all his writings to be handed over to us, to be approved or corrected according to the judgment of the apostolic see. He dictated a letter, which he signed with his own hand, in which he firmly confesses that he holds the faith held by the Roman church, which is by God’s plan the mother and mistress of all the faithful.
4th Lateran Council

It would seem that this passage of scripture was in much debate regarding its actual meaning. Something Erasmus pointed out in his annotations. It would seem some understood this to mean one in substance, while others one in agreement. 

Perhaps someone will say, “This was an effective weapon against the Arians.” But firstly, since it is certain that the reading varied both in the Greek and in the Latin traditions, this weapon will be worthless against them, who would doubtless with equal justification claim for themselves whichever reading serves their cause. But imagine that the reading is not in dispute, since what is said about the testimony of the water, blood and Spirit being one refers not to an identity of nature, but to an agreement in testimony, do we really think that the Arians would be so stupid as not to apply the same interpretation to the Father, the Word and the Spirit here, especially since orthodox writers give this same interpretation to a similar passage in the Gospels, since Augustine does not reject this interpretation in his diatribe Against the Arian Maximinus, and since an interlinear fragment of the Glossa ordinariainterprets this very place in this way? “[The three] are one,” says the Glossa, “that is: testifying about the same thing.”
Erasmus annotations on 1 John 5:7 

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 Solicism at this part of the Greek text. 

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

He stated 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

If the words were added in the Latin, it must also be explained how the inclusion of these words fixes the Solicism in the Greek. Whoever added the words must have had not only added them to the Latin, but also in doing so have been ompletelly fluent in the Greek in such a way that by adding these exact words in the Latin, he would also create a translation back into Greek that would grammatically reconcile these verses. 

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. 

The surviving Greek manuscript evidence remains the strongest evidence against the originality of the Comma Johanneum. Nevertheless, the case is considerably more complicated than the familiar narrative suggests. The antiquity of the Latin tradition, possible third-century patristic knowledge, the Jerome-Prologue tradition, established fifth-century African usage, the Greek grammatical phenomenon, the independent Complutensian inclusion, and the collapse of several popular claims concerning Erasmus all require explanation. Conversely, the early Greek manuscript evidence is much smaller than statements about “hundreds of Greek manuscripts” imply. A theory of interpolation must therefore be demonstrated historically rather than treated as the default explanation requiring no proof.

Positive evidence

1. Strong Latin textual attestation.
   The Comma has substantial attestation in the Latin tradition, including Old Latin evidence and subsequently widespread Vulgate transmission. The question therefore isn’t merely why medieval Latin manuscripts contain it, but how early the reading existed in Latin and where it came from.
2. Early patristic knowledge is highly plausible.
   Cyprian is particularly significant because of his third-century statement concerning the Father and Son, “and these three are one.” Whether this is quotation, allusion, or interpretation of verse 8 must be debated, but the similarity cannot simply be dismissed. Later Latin writers provide increasingly explicit evidence.
3. The traditional Erasmus story is seriously problematic.
   The familiar narrative that Erasmus promised to include the Comma if someone produced a Greek manuscript, after which one was manufactured specifically to force his hand, is much less secure than popular presentations suggest. This matters because the Erasmus story has often functioned rhetorically as an explanation for how the Comma entered the Textus Receptus. Once that narrative is weakened, Erasmus’ actual reasons for inclusion have to be investigated afresh.
4. The Prologue to the Canonical Epistles attributed to Jerome presents an ancient omission tradition.
   This is potentially one of the most interesting pieces of evidence, but it needs careful wording because the authorship of the Prologue is disputed. The Prologue complains that unfaithful translators omitted the testimony of the Father, Word and Spirit. If genuinely Jerome—or even if demonstrably early—it witnesses to an ancient belief that the reading was being removed rather than added. The connection with theological controversy becomes particularly interesting given accusations that “the three are one” could be exploited in a Sabellian direction.
5. Established ecclesiastical use by late antiquity.
   The African evidence surrounding the 484 confession presented at the Conference of Carthage is especially valuable because the Comma is being employed publicly in Trinitarian controversy. This establishes that the reading was not some invention of Erasmus or the late medieval period. By the fifth century it had an established theological life.
6. The grammatical problem in the shorter Greek text.
   The masculine τρεῖς … οἱ μαρτυροῦντες … οἱ τρεῖς followed by the neuter πνεῦμα, ὕδωρ, αἷμα requires explanation. There are proposed grammatical explanations, so I wouldn’t call the shorter reading grammatically impossible. But the longer reading creates an elegant masculine antecedent and parallel structure. That creates a fascinating problem for a Latin-interpolation theory: why should an interpolation supposedly originating in Latin happen to resolve an unusual feature of the Greek syntax?

7. The Complutensian Polyglot independently included the Comma.
   This is very important for dismantling the idea that the Greek Comma derives simply from Erasmus. The Complutensian editors had already printed it in their Greek text before Erasmus’ first edition appeared, even though publication of the Polyglot came later. Therefore the history cannot be reduced to:

   Montfortianus → Erasmus → all subsequent Greek texts.

   There was another early-sixteenth-century Greek editorial tradition containing it independently of Erasmus.

Weaknesses or unresolved problems in the case against it

8. The genuinely early Greek manuscript sample is extremely small.
   This needs to be one of your central points. The statement “the early Greek manuscripts omit it” can be technically true while producing a misleading impression of the quantity of evidence. We should distinguish three early witnesses from “hundreds of Greek manuscripts.” The hundreds are overwhelmingly much later. The early Greek evidence against the Comma is important, but numerically sparse.
9. The Greek manuscript statistics are frequently overstated.
   Claims such as “over 500 Greek manuscripts omit it” need auditing against manuscripts that actually contain the relevant portion of 1 John, their dates, lacunae, marginal readings, lectionary status, and dependence. Five hundred medieval witnesses are not equivalent to five hundred witnesses from the third through fifth centuries. Quantity and antiquity are different evidential questions.
10. A Latin-origin interpolation theory requires its own transmission history.
    This may become one of the strongest questions in your study. Saying:

“The Comma originated as a Latin gloss and eventually entered the biblical text”

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