Acts 15:34 and the Johannine Comma

[Prodigal1984]

They are both present in older Douay Rheims and King James Bibles, but I notice newer Bibles either have them in a footnote or omit them all together.
From what I understand the Johannine Comma caused some theological debate between Catholics and Protestants early on.

 

[Hodos]

I am not super familiar with the textual criticism of Acts 15:34 other than that the passage is not contained in the early manuscripts of Acts. With regard to the Comma Johanneum, the textual criticism is decidedly against it being original to the manuscript tradition. Essentially, the CJ is missing from Greek manuscripts until at least the 1400s, and are also missing from many of the ancient translations such as Coptic, Sahedic, etc. Early Latin manuscripts also do not have it. It appears that this phrase comes in somewhat early on in the Latin Vulgate, and even there it appears that it was originally a marginal note, most likely reflecting someone referencing an early sermon. The reason the Douay Rheims has it is because the Douay Rheims is essentially an English translation of the Vulgate, not the Greek manuscripts. The King James Version has it because later editions of the critical texts of the day (3rd edition of Erasmus, Beza, and Stephanas contained it). However, Erasmus considered it a suspect text because prior to his third edition he had not seen it in any manuscript that he had examined. In other words, the manuscript traditions seem to support the new critical translations of the Bible that leave those verses as marginal notes and should not be a significant divider between Catholics and Protestants from a scholarly point.

 

[BartholomewB]

This may not be the kind of answer you’re looking for, but if it’s any help, you can check this collation of the NT manuscripts to see which ones include these passages and which ones don’t. In the case of 1 John 5:7-8, you will see that the so-called “Johannine comma” is present in only two of the manuscript traditions, the 2016 King James Textus Receptus (KJTR ) and the 1550 Robert Estienne (ST) text.

Acts 15:34 is a little more complicated, since this verse is found in both a longer and a shorter form.

The website belongs to the Center for New Testament Restoration, located in Lafayette, Indiana. From what I’ve seen of it, the CNTR seems to be pretty much a one-man venture, operated by Alan Bunning, a professor of computer science at Purdue.

https://greekcntr.org/collation/index.htm

 

[irenaeuslyons]

The comma is cited in the writings of Tertullian and Cyprian. They wrote before the Arian heresy which is an often cited reason for its addition.

 

[Hodos]

The comma is cited in the writings of Tertullian and Cyprian. They wrote before the Arian heresy which is an often cited reason for its addition.

Actually I believe the comma is suspiciously absent from Tertullian’s writings even though he quotes 1 John 5:8. It is also absent from the patristic writings of many of the early fathers who were responding to Trinitarian heresies. Cyprian’s writings appear to offer not a quote of the passage (which was missing in all manuscript traditions that we know of from his time such as Greek, Coptic, Sahedic, and even the early Latin manuscripts) but an allegorical interpretation of the Spirit, the water, and the blood which would be consistent with patristic hermeneutical practices of his day.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

How old is the earliest manuscript we have without it?

Wikipedia has a whole bunch of references to the comma by church fathers including councils.
Johannine Comma in Patristic Writers

 

[Hodos]

It is missing from both Siniaticus and Vaticanus, both are early to late 300’s. The papyri we have are fragmentary and I do not think we have any with sections of 1 John 5. Also if you read through that list of patristics it actually supports what I am saying. With the exception of Cyprian, who again is thought to be providing not a quote, but an allegorical interpretation, most of the early Fathers seem to be ignorant of the Comma. It seems to be strictly the Latin fathers, rather than the Greek theologians (and only those after the time of Augustine) who seem to reference it. That to me is also suspicious and seems to support the theory that it was a corruption that made its way into one early translation stream.

 

[Bithynian]

From what I understand the Johannine Comma caused some theological debate between Catholics and Protestants early on.

Insofar as I know, there was very little controversy between Protestants and Catholics over the Johannine Comma, given that both communities subscribe to the Trinity. Most Protestant Bibles (e.g. Luther’s Bible, the KJV, Geneva Bible, etc.) included the comma until the 20th century. There is still a significant minority of Protestants who hold that the Johannine comma is Scripture.

Most of the controversy occurred within Catholicism, specifically between Erasmus (and some others) who thought that the comma was a corruption versus the very many others who claimed that Erasmus and his supporters were denying the Trinity by removing the Johannine comma.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

It is missing from both Siniaticus and Vaticanus, both are early to late 300’s. The papyri we have are fragmentary and I do not think we have any with sections of 1 John 5.

Thanks. Ultimately, I wish we had earlier texts (sigh).

In the mid/late 300’s both Antioch and Constantinople were still under the Arian heresy (roughly 330-370 both were). Part of me wonders if it could have been removed for convenience. And perhaps Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are just copies of altered texts since they were created at that same time frame. Constantinople had Ephesus in its domain where the original Gospel of John with epistles was kept in those days(as recorded by Jerome). So if anyone was going to make a direct copy of John or his epistles, it would have to be done under the influence of Arian heretics.

Interestingly, Greek father Gregory of Nazianzus makes reference to its absence because the Greek grammar is awkward without it.

. . . 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 yourselves disclaim in the case of Deity?
-Gregory of Nazianzus, A.D. 390

It seems to be strictly the Latin fathers, rather than the Greek theologians (and only those after the time of Augustine) who seem to reference it. That to me is also suspicious and seems to support the theory that it was a corruption that made its way into one early translation stream.

Yes, it is suspicious. It could be a corruption or gloss that got incorporated. Ultimately, that seems more likely, but I wish there was more concrete proof. The fathers are silent on most verses in the bible before the 300’s. So the argument of absence/omission is not that compelling for me.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Some of the other quotes I cam across

There is also Athanasius citing the comma against Arius in a manuscript that is now considered pseudo by a majority of scholars, although I wish I knew why it is now considered pseudo. Hopefully the comma was not the proof used against it.

Likewise is not the remission of sins procured by that quickening and sanctifying ablution, without which no man shall see the kingdom of heaven, an ablution given to the faithful in the thrice-blessed name. And besides all these, John says, And the three are one.
-St. Athanasius, A.D. 325

Interestingly, Jerome knew of the comma was in some and not in others:

In that place particularly where we read about the unity of the Trinity which is placed in the First Epistle of John, in which also the names of three, i.e. of water, of blood, and of spirit, do they place in their edition and omitting the testimony of the Father; and the Word, and the Spirit in which the catholic faith is especially confirmed and the single substance of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is confirmed.
- St Jerome, A.D. ~380

Cyprians use of the same exact Latin phrase is tough for me to dismiss. I accept what you say as a possibility, but I think it could still be a direct reference.

“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’.”
- St Cyprian, A.D. 258

Another contemporary of Augustine and Jerome

As John says “and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh, the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus.”
- Priscillian, A.D. 385

 

[Hodos]

Yes, it is suspicious. It could be a corruption or gloss that got incorporated. Ultimately, that seems more likely, but I wish there was more concrete proof. The fathers are silent on most verses in the bible before the 300’s. So the argument of absence/omission is not that compelling for me.

Actually, the early Fathers quote extensively from scripture. Ireneaus of Lyons quotes from nearly every book of the New Testament, for example, in Against Heresies. Tertullian, Novatian, Hyppolytus do as well.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Actually, the early Fathers quote extensively from scripture. Ireneaus of Lyons quotes from nearly every book of the New Testament, for example, in Against Heresies. Tertullian, Novatian, Hyppolytus do as well.

Yes the fathers touch every book, but I was being more precise with my words. I said the fathers are silent on most verses . There are roughly 7950 verses in the NT. How many do you think they directly quoted? Its not even close to that number. That’s why I don’t see the argument of omission as compelling.

 

[Hodos]

I do find it compelling when this verse would have testified directly to the heart of many of the Trinitarian controversies of the first through fourth centuries. So as an example, the Comma would have been instrumental in proving the divinity of the Holy Spirit. This would have been a key text. However, this is not the text the Cappadocian Fathers hang their hats on. They primarily go to John 15:26, Matthew 28:19, and various passages that speak of the Holy Spirit as the one who sanctifies, a much more round-about defense.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

I do find it compelling when this verse would have testified directly to the heart of many of the Christological controversies of the first through fourth centuries. So as an example, the Comma would have been instrumental in proving the divinity of the Holy Spirit. This would have been a key text. However, this is not the text the Cappadocian Fathers hang their hats on. They primarily go to John 15:26, Matthew 28:19, and various passages that speak of the Holy Spirit as the one who sanctifies, a much more round-about defense.

Again, I originally said:

The fathers are silent on most verses in the bible before the 300’s.

The Cappadocian fathers are all after 300. As is the controversy your talking about. In any case, one of them I already mentioned (Gregory) referenced the missing comma because of the inconsistent grammar.

One reason its not cited could be this… Why would someone use it as proof when the heretic could just show their manuscript that didn’t have the comma? As St. Jerome noted, both kinds were floating around out there. Such a tactic would not further the debate at all.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

An interesting analysis of the comma I ran into today, searching for something completely different

Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) - KJV Today

“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” (1 John 5:7, KJV) “οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν” (1 John 5:7, 1894 Scrivener Textus Receptus) ...

www.kjvtoday.com

 

[BartholomewB]

Warning! The last line of text, immediately above the footnotes, reads:

Read more articles from: The King James Version is Demonstrably Inerrant

 

[Hodos]

No, not in and of itself, but it is supporting evidence that the Comma Johanneum was not in the Greek manuscript tradition early on as evidenced by both the Greek Manuscripts we have themselves, and the lack of support from patristics.