Reflections on the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7)

  • Thread starter Thread starter JMJ_coder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JMJ_coder

Guest
Hello,

I recently had these thoughts on the verse (1 John 5:7) that reads:

“And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.”

I realized that this can be found elsewhere in Johns writings. To begin with, Mosaic law declared that at least two witnesses must be used in testimony (Dt 6:17; 19:15). Going from this, Christ said that two do witness to Him (Jn 5:31-40). Himself, which isn’t sufficient for legality, and also His Father Who sent Him. He also states that Scripture testifies to Him. (Both Christ and Scripture are the Word of God. In fact John really hammers the point that Christ is the Word).

Later in the Gospel, Jesus says that He will send the Paraclete, and that He will testify to Christ as well (Jn 15:26).

We know from John’s Gospel that the Father and Jesus are one (Jn 10:30; 17:11). And also that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one (Jn 14:6; 14:17).

So compile all of this together and you get three witnesses: the Father, the Word (both Jesus and Scripture), and the Holy Spirit. And the Father is one with Jesus is one with the Holy Spirit.

A.K.A. - “And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.”
 
I remember the first time I came across that verse after getting my Douay and how it impressed me as a very clear expression of the Trinity. I wondered why I had never noticed it before. I checked my other translations (RSV and NAB), and then I knew why; they don’t read quite the same. I’m sure you’re aware that there’s question as to it’s authenticity. The footnote on verse 7 in the Geo. Haydock Douay Bible is interesting.

But I still love it - the whole section of 1 John 5:5-8.

Nita
 
This is just another demonstration of why the Douay Rheims really is the greatest!
 
Hello,
Nita said:
I’m sure you’re aware that there’s question as to it’s authenticity. The footnote on verse 7 in the Geo. Haydock Douay Bible is interesting.
Click to expand...
Yes, I have read the arguments. And in my opinion there is more evidence pointing to it genuine authenticity than evidence to support it’s falseness.

What is the footnote you refer to?
 
According to the footnotes in my RSV-CE, the Johannine Comma was first found in the 4th century Latin, and does not appear in any Greek version until the 15th century, and was probably a marginal gloss that found its way into the text.
 
Hello,
RNRobert said:
According to the footnotes in my RSV-CE, the Johannine Comma was first found in the 4th century Latin, and does not appear in any Greek version until the 15th century, and was probably a marginal gloss that found its way into the text.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is the somewhat general consesus among so called scholars of Biblical Studies (that is about as nice as I can call alot of them). But the evidence just doesn’t build a solid case in their favor.

That it is first found in fourth century Latin - do we have any extant copies that predate this? We know that it is at least in the fourth century since that is when Saint Jerome translated the Bible into Latin for the official Vulgate. It is in his translation, which he translated from Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek.

Also there are those who knew of this even before Saint Jerome, like Cyprian (258 A.D.). And various Eastern (Greek) saints and fathers knew of it and accepted it. Why would they do this if it wasn’t in their Greek Bible.

That it doesn’t appear in any Greek manuscript until the fifteenth century isn’t entirely true either. It is found in some prior Greek manuscripts, but these are in the minority text. Also, there appears to be evidence that this could have possibly been tampered with. During the fourth to sixth (approximate) centuries, there were great Christological and Trinitarian disputes in the East (where most Greek manuscripts were). It seems that some of the heretics could have attempted to eliminate this verse (along with other verses supporting Christ’s divinity) to advance their heresies. How successful they were (or if it was attempted at all) has yet to be determined.

Also, if the verse is read in Greek, the text of the preceding and suceeding verses just doesn’t make sense grammatically without the verse.
 
JMJ_coder said:
Hello,

Yes, I have read the arguments. And in my opinion there is more evidence pointing to it genuine authenticity than evidence to support it’s falseness.

What is the footnote you refer to?
Click to expand...
Here is the Haydock footnote - the pertinent portion:

“Ver. 7. …The Socinians object that this verse is wanting in many Greek manuscripts; and even Erasmus in one edition, and Mr. Simon in his Critics, have questioned it, or rejected it, as a false reading, but without any sufficient proofs and grounds, as hath been shewn by many learned Catholics, and also by Protestant writers, who receive in their translations this verse as canonical. It is easy to account for the omission of this verse; for as both the seventh and eighth verse begin and end with the same words, this gave occasion to the oversight and omission of the transcribers, whereas it is not credible that such a whole verse could be added. And that it was only by the mistake and oversight of transcribers may further appear, because we find part of the seventh verse, to wit, and these three are one, cited, by Tertul. 1. cont. Praxeam. c. xxiii, p. 515. Ed. Rig. and twice by Cyprian, Epist 73. ad Jubaianum, p. 125. Ed. Rig. in the Oxford Edition, p. 310. and in his Treatise de Unit. Ecclesiae, p. 181. Ed. Rigal. and in the Oxford Ed. p. 79, where also Dr. Fell defends this verse of S. John to be genuine. Tertul. and Cyp. wrote long before the dispute with the Arians. The Socinians also object that this passage is not brought by S. Athanasius and some other fathers against the Arians, which they could scarce have omitted had they read this verse, but this only proves that the omission had happened in some MSS. in their time, or, as some conjecture, that the Arians had corrupted some copies. S. Fulgentius made use of it against the Arians, and also others about that time. See the Benedictines of S. Maur against Mr. Simon, in the first tome of S. Jerom, p. 1670. Both Catholics and Protestants, after a diligent examination, have received this verse, which is found in the best MSS. See Greek Test. at Amsterdam, an. 1711. …”

Following is the Navarre Bible footnote:
“7-8. The Sistine-Clementine edition of the Vulgate included an addition which left the text reading as follows: ‘There are three who give witness in heaven; the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three who give witness on earth:** the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree.’ The words shown in italics (known as the Johannine “comma” or addition) were the subject of heated debate (around the end of the nineteenth century) as to their authenticity. The Holy Office (as was) left theologians free to research the matter (cf. Declaration, 2 June 1927) and in fact it has been shown that the “comma” was introduced in Spain around the fourth century AD in a text attributed to Priscillian, and therefore does not belong to the original inspired text. …”

End Quotes.

Have never read the Tertullian and Cyprian works (cited in the Haydock) to see the manner in which they quoted the verse. (By that I mean, did they say they were quoting John in his epistle, etc.). Maybe somebody out there has those works and could post those sections.

Nita****
 
Hello,

Thanks for the footnote.

I don’t have the text of Tertullian, but here is what Cyprian wrote:
“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’.” (Treatises 1 5:423)
 
Hi JMJ,

Thanks for your post. I hate to sound like a “DRV Only-ite” but it seems more and more like the DRV is truly the most accurate Bible out there. If only someone could come with a revised version to throw out some of the archaisms…:hmmm:
 
I would note that any translation based on the Textus Receptus has this verse, including all the older Protestant versions.
 
The Nova Vulgata does not include the Johanine comma.

Have any of the translators of the Nova Vulgata ever stated why they don’t include it?
 
RNRobert said:
Hi JMJ,

Thanks for your post. I hate to sound like a “DRV Only-ite” but it seems more and more like the DRV is truly the most accurate Bible out there. If only someone could come with a revised version to throw out some of the archaisms…:hmmm:
Click to expand...
Coming up “with a revised (D-R) to throw out some of the archaisms” is not as easy as it sounds. One reason is that meanings of some words have changed over the intervening centuries (e.g., “precede” was rendered as “prevent” (to come before) in the D-R, and “bowels” was used for “inner parts”). And some words had a wider range of meaning then than they do today (“bread” or “meat” in the D-R often meant “food” as we use it today). So by rooting out “archaisms”, we might throw out some intended nuances.

Worse, while the original intention might be to throw out the archaisms, it soon degenerates into a wider agenda; e.g., Prov. 5:18 in D-R reads “…let her breasts inebriate thee at all times…” The RSV, itself a revision of the “archaic” KJV renders this same verse “Let her affection fill you at all times with delight…” What, were “breasts” too offensive to some readers/hearers?

The much-praised CCD NT of 1941 botched John 2:4; D-R: Woman, what is that to me and to thee?"; CCD: “Woman, what wouldst thou have me do?” Great statement on the intercession of Mary, but that’s NOT WHAT THE TEXT SAID.

No thanks; leave the D-R Challoner as it is! If any version needs fixin’, it’s the RSV-CE, but, hey, we already know that. 🙂
 
A. Greek Manuscripts

The disputed part is found in no uncial Greek manuscripts and in only four rather recent cursives – one of the fifteenth and three of the sixteenth century. **No Greek epistolary manuscript contains the passage. **

B. Versions

No Syriac manuscript of any family – Peshito, Philoxenian, or Harklean – has the three witnesses; and their presence in the printed Syriac Gospels is due to translation from the Vulgate. So too, the Coptic manuscripts – both Sahidic and Bohairic – have no trace of the disputed part, nor have the Ethiopic manuscripts which represent Greek influence through the medium of Coptic. The Armenian manuscripts, which favour the reading of the Vulgate, are admitted to represent a Latin influence which dates from the twelfth century; early Armenian manuscripts are against the Latin reading. Of the Itala or Old Latin manuscripts, only two have our present reading of the three witnesses: Codex Monacensis (q) of the sixth or seventh century; and the Speculum (m), an eighth or ninth century manuscript which gives many quotations from the New Testament. Even the Vulgate, in the majority of its earliest manuscripts, is without the passage in question. Witnesses to the canonicity are: the Bible of Theodulph (eighth century) in the National Library of Paris; Codex Cavensis (ninth century), the best representative of the Spanish type of text: Toletanus (tenth century); and the majority of Vulgate manuscripts after the twelfth century. There was some dispute as to the canonicity of the three witnesses as early as the sixth century: for the preface to the Catholic Epistles in Codex Fuldensis (A.D. 541-546) complains about the omission of this passage from some of the Latin versions.

C. The Fathers

(1) Greek Fathers, until the twelfth century, seem one and all to have had no knowledge of the three witnesses as canonical Scripture. At times they cite verses 8 and 9 and omit the disputed portions of verses 7 and 8. The Fourth Lateran (A.D. 1215), in its decree against Abbot Joachim (see Denzinger, 10th ed., n. 431) quotes the disputed passage with the remark “sicut in quibusdam codicibus invenitur”. Thereafter, we find the Greek Fathers making use of the text as canonical. (**2) The Syriac Fathers never use the text. (3) The Armenian Fathers do not use it before the twelfth century. (4) The Latin Fathers make much earlier use of the text as canonical Scripture. St. Cyprian **(third century) seems undoubtedly to have had it in mind, when he quotes John, x, 30, and adds: “Et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est – Et hi tres unum sunt” (De Unitate Ecclesiæ, vi). Clear also is the witness of St. Fulgentius (sixth century, “Responsio contra Arianos” in P. L., LXV, 224), who refers to the above witness of St. Cyprian. In fact, outside of St. Augustine, the Fathers of the African Church are to be grouped with St. Cyprian in favour of the canonicity of the passage. The silence of the great and voluminous St. Augustine and the variation in form of the text in the African Church are admitted facts that militate against the canonicity of the three witnesses. **St. Jerome **(fourth century) does not seem to know the text. After the sixth century, the disputed passage is more and more in use among the Latin Fathers; and, by the twelfth century, is commonly cited as canonical Scripture.

newadvent.org/cathen/08435a.htm
 
Hello,

The Catholic Encyclopedia, in this instance, appears to be mistaken.
Daniel_Marsh said:
A. Greek Manuscripts

The disputed part is found in no uncial Greek manuscripts and in only four rather recent cursives – one of the fifteenth and three of the sixteenth century. **No Greek epistolary manuscript contains the passage. **
Click to expand...
As I wrote earlier:

That it doesn’t appear in any Greek manuscript until the fifteenth century isn’t entirely true either. It is found in some prior Greek manuscripts, but these are in the minority text. Also, there appears to be evidence that this could have possibly been tampered with. During the fourth to sixth (approximate) centuries, there were great Christological and Trinitarian disputes in the East (where most Greek manuscripts were). It seems that some of the heretics could have attempted to eliminate this verse (along with other verses supporting Christ’s divinity) to advance their heresies. How successful they were (or if it was attempted at all) has yet to be determined.

Also, if the verse is read in Greek, the text of the preceding and suceeding verses just doesn’t make sense grammatically without the verse.
Daniel_Marsh said:
C. The Fathers

(1) Greek Fathers, until the twelfth century, seem one and all to have had no knowledge of the three witnesses as canonical Scripture.
Click to expand...
This is wrong, too. There are several Greek Fathers who knew of this verse. For instance, Saint Gregory Nazianzen comments on the grammatical difficulties that occur if this verse is not present.
 
Denzinger 2198:

Decree of the Holy Office, Jan. 13, 1897:

To the question: "Whether it can safely be denied, or at least called into doubt that the text of St. John in the first epistle, chapter 5, verse 7, is authentic…
Response: in the negative.

Later a Declaration of the Holy Office, June 2, 1927, clarified that scholars could still investigate the idea, as long as they submit to the judgment of the Church.

Note that the 1590, 1592, 1593, 1598, and 1623 editions of the Latin Bible published by the Vatican all have the Johannine Comma.
 
JMJ_coder said:
Hello,

…
This is wrong, too. There are several Greek Fathers who knew of this verse. For instance, Saint Gregory Nazianzen comments on the grammatical difficulties that occur if this verse is not present.
Click to expand...
Could you kindly quote those passages in those fathers with links to their full text online?

newadvent.org

Thanks
Daniel

What are the codes for the manuscripts you refer to, so I can add them to my copy of UBS Textual commentary.
 
RNRobert said:
I hate to sound like a “DRV Only-ite” but it seems more and more like the DRV is truly the most accurate Bible out there. If only someone could come with a revised version to throw out some of the archaisms…:hmmm:
Click to expand...
Something else re your suggestion came to mind; to wit, it was decided that the Traditional Latin Mass needed to be “updated” after Vatican II. I don’t know how it turned out in other languages but we sure have a “masterpiece” in English, no? :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top