Hello,
The Catholic Encyclopedia, in this instance, appears to be mistaken.
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.
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.
Hi JMJ,
No, there’s nothing wrong with the grammar without the Comma, and no, Gregory did not think that there was. There is no such thing as grammatical gender agreement between a pronoun or participle and multiple referent nouns–it never happens, because it can’t, because grammatical gender agreement can occur only when the referent is represented in the text by a single noun–and Gregory cited 1 John 5:8 as one of 5 correctly written proof texts to prove to the person to whom he was writing that he was wrong in his position that things of different natures cannot be grouped together and that things of one gender cannot be grouped together under the heading of a different gender. The first 3 of these 5 proof texts are in paragraph 18. The 1st proof text is Proverbs 30:29-31, which Gregory cites from the LXX. There is no grammatical gender agreement in this proof text either. The remaining 2 of the 5 proof texts are in paragraph 19, and 1 John 5:8 is the 4th proof text, which, like the first proof text, displays grammatical gender disagreement. Both the 1st and 4th proof texts prove Gregories position that there is nothing wrong with things of one gender being grouped together under the heading of a different gender. Thus, Gregory’s point is the opposite of what pro-Comma enthusiasts assert it to be. In the Majority Text (MT), there are only 8 New Testament examples of a pronoun or participle whose referent is represented in the text by multiple nouns: Matthew 15:19 and 23:23, John 6:9, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Galatians 5:19-21 and 5:22-23 and Colossians 3:5-7 and 3:12-14. Grammatical gender agreement occurs in none of them, even when all of the multiple nouns have the same grammatical gender (1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Galatians 5:22-23), because it can’t, because grammatical gender agreement can occur only when the referent is represented in the text by a single noun, and even then, grammatical gender agreement is not a requirement, but merely a frequently utilized option. Otherwise, whether the author chooses not to utilize grammatical gender agreement, or whether the referent is represented in the text either by no noun or by multiple nouns, the pronoun or participle is assigned the gender that is consistent with the natural gender (the nature) of the referent, either neuter for a thing or things or masculine for a person or persons or feminine for a female person or persons. 1 Corinthians 13:13 is not included in this list, because in this verse, it is not a pronoun or participle but a substantival (functioning as a noun) adjective whose referent is represented in the text by the three (multiple) grammatically feminine nouns, but grammatical gender agreement does not occur here either. Thus, there is a zero expectation of grammatical gender agreement in 1 John 5:8 (MT) between the masculine participle and three neuter nouns, as is always the case in a multiple-referent-noun construction. But 1 John 5:8 (MT) cannot be include in this list either, because the three neuter nouns are not actually referent nouns, because John is not saying that “the Spirit and the water and the blood” literally ARE “the ones bearing witness,” but that they ARE LIKE “the ones bearing witness.” John is making a comparison in 1 John 5:8-9 (MT) between the things (the Spirit and the water and the blood) that comprise the witness of God regarding His Son and the persons (the ones bearing witness) that comprise the traditionally accepted witness of men (the 2 or 3 witnesses [men] prescribed by Moses in Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15). This 2-or-3-witness model is cited in Matthew 18:16, John 8:17-18, 2 Corinthians 13:1, 1 Timothy 5:19, Hebrews 10:28 and 1 John 5:8-9 in the MT New Testament, and the number of witnesses stated in conformity to this model never exceeds 3. John’s comparison of things to persons in 1 John 5:8-9 (MT) is no different what Jesus does in Luke 8:14 or what Paul does in 2 Corinthians 13:1 or what the unknown author does in Hebrews 10:28-29. So what John expresses in 1 John 5:8-9 (MT) without the Comma is grammatically correct and logically reasonable and traditionally sound. The Comma was obviously added later by someone else.
Jim
