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

[RNRobert]

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?

Yeah. It’s nice to see Latin being used in parts of the Novus Ordo Mass. Now, if only my diocese would expand the use of the TLM…

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

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.

Are they saying that it can be assumed to be authentic or not? Do you have a link to the full text?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Why was not the Johannine Comma used against the Arians?

Many say that Saint Athanasius referenced it in both his On the Incarnation and his History of the Arians. I have not personally seen the text that they claim is the reference - I have read the entire On the Incarnation, but not the History of the Arians.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

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.

Saint Gregory Nazianzen:

What about John then, when in his Catholic Epistle he says that there are Three that bear witness, the Spirit 324and the Water and the Blood? Do you think he is talking nonsense? First, because he has ventured to reckon under one numeral things which are not consubstantial, though you say this ought to be done only in the case of things which are consubstantial. For who would assert that these are consubstantial? 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? (Fifth Theological Oration - On the Holy Spirit, 19)

It is uncertain from this whether Saint Gregory knew of the verse or not, but he does speak of the grammatical difficulties that arise by its absence.

Saint Jerome:

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. (Preface to the Catholic Epistles) - Note: I don’t have a source for the full text, so I cannot confirm this quote.

Saint Cyprian:

The Lord warns, saying, “He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth.” He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;” and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.” And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? He who does not hold this unity does not hold God’s law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation. (On the Unity of the Church, 6)

This is just a sampling, but there are others.

 

[J1Priest]

I am still very confused.
I am using e-Sword and the RSV there does not have that verse and neither does the Vulgate there.
The KJV and DRB do have it…

 

[Manfred]

I am still very confused.
I am using e-Sword and the RSV there does not have that verse and neither does the Vulgate there.
The KJV and DRB do have it…

The KJV and the New KJV have it. These are based on relatively-late Greek manuscripts.

The Clementine Vulgate has it.

The Douay-Rheims (translated from the Clementine Vulgate) has it.

The Confraternity New Testament (1941) - a revisioner of the Challoner-Rheims version - has it.

The Nova Vulgata does NOT have it.

Neither does any other “modern” version (e.g., RSV) based on early Greek manuscripts.

 

[J1Priest]

better.
thnx!

so is the text a forgery, an addition… or simply was lost and then recovered…? :-/

srry! lol

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

The KJV and the New KJV have it. These are based on relatively-late Greek manuscripts.

The Clementine Vulgate has it.

The Douay-Rheims (translated from the Clementine Vulgate) has it.

The Confraternity New Testament (1941) - a revisioner of the Challoner-Rheims version - has it.

The Nova Vulgata does NOT have it.

Neither does any other “modern” version (e.g., RSV) based on early Greek manuscripts.

I believe that the so-called ‘modern’ versions, when they use the ‘early’ Greek manuscripts are only using the so-called ‘majority’ text. The fact is that the ‘majority’ text is not the majority of the texts.

One of the problems with the RSV-CE (though I do think it is the best ‘modern’ English translation available).

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

better.
thnx!

so is the text a forgery, an addition… or simply was lost and then recovered…? :-/

srry! lol

I think it is possible that heretics in the East tried to destroy the existence of this verse, as it would help them deny the Truth which destroyed their heresy (i.e., Arianism, Nestorianism, Monothelitism, etc.). But, I don’t know if there is any evidence to support this speculation.

 

[J1Priest]

ooo, it makes sense, too bad we can’t really go back n check, hah.

I bet atheists who know the Bible “well” use this as an attack

 

[Jerry-Jet]

As much as I would love the verse to be legitimate–the Nova Vugata doesn’t include it and what they say is as close to official as we have in today’s world.

I’d just like to here from one of the translators of the Nova Vulgata and ask them why they chose not to include it!

Does anyone know the Orthodox church’s position on it?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

As much as I would love the verse to be legitimate–the Nova Vugata doesn’t include it and what they say is as close to official as we have in today’s world.

I’d just like to here from one of the translators of the Nova Vulgata and ask them why they chose not to include it!

Does anyone know the Orthodox church’s position on it?

And while the Nova Vulgata is the new official Bible of the Catholic Church, that means that it probably won’t be used in any official documents nor heard from the Lectionary. But, as far as I know, it is still open as a matter of scholastic debate.

The reason I think that the Nova Vulgata doesn’t include it is the same reason that the other ‘modern’ translations don’t - which I spoke of a few posts back.

As for the Orthodox - it depends. They don’t have a single official authoritative version/translation of the Bible. I have heard that an Orthodox Greek Bible does include the verse. A lot of times the Orthodox will use either a Protestant or Catholic Bible (i.e. KJV, NKJV, RSV, etc.) - so it would depend on which one the Orthodox group or person uses. The question to ask is whether the Orthodox Study Bible (is it finished yet?) includes this verse.

 

[Manfred]

I believe that the so-called ‘modern’ versions, when they use the ‘early’ Greek manuscripts are only using the so-called ‘majority’ text. The fact is that the ‘majority’ text is not the majority of the texts.

One of the problems with the RSV-CE (though I do think it is the best ‘modern’ English translation available).

Michael Marlowe, aka The Bible Researcher (www.bible-researcher.com) has this to say re the “majority” and the “received” text types:

"The Received Text (textus receptus) is not a single text. It is a tradition of printed texts published during the time of the Protestant Reformation, that is, the 1500’s and early 1600’s. It includes the editions of Erasmus, Estienne (Stephens), Beza, and Elzevir. These texts are closely allied, and are all mostly derived from Erasmus 1516. They are based upon a small number of late medieval manuscripts. The King James Version is based upon the Received Text.

"The Majority Text is derived from the plurality of all existing Greek manuscripts; but because most of these manuscripts are late medieval manuscripts, there is a family resemblance between the Received Text and the Majority Text. They agree with one another much more than either of them agree with the critical Greek texts published by scholars in the past two hundred years. These critical texts are based upon the oldest manuscripts and versions (from the 100’s to the 600’s), and agree with one another much more than any of them agree with the Received Text or the Majority Text.

“And so it is appropriate to say that the texts in question fall into two groups: (1) The kind of text found in the majority of medieval manuscripts (often called the ‘Byzantine’ text-type); and (2) the ancient type of text which is exhibited in our oldest available manuscripts (often called the ‘Alexandrian’ text-type).”

While the KJV and the NKJV are renderings of the “Byzantine” text type, the RSV, the RSV-CE, and most of the other modern translations are based on the “Alexandrian” text type.

I’m not sure to what you are referring in your last unfinished sentence.

 

[Manfred]

And while the Nova Vulgata is the new official Bible of the Catholic Church, that means that it probably won’t be used in any official documents nor heard from the Lectionary. But, as far as I know, it is still open as a matter of scholastic debate.

If by “it” you mean the Nova Vulgata, then the latter is used in the LATIN texts of official Church documents. But the Lectionary for Mass is not translated from it, since liturgical texts were expected to be translated from the original languages; this was reinforced by Liturgiam Authenticam.

However, I believe that by “it” you meant the Johannine Comma, in which case your statement above is accurate, though ambiguous.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Michael Marlowe, aka The Bible Researcher (www.bible-researcher.com) has this to say re the “majority” and the “received” text types:

"The Received Text (textus receptus) is not a single text. It is a tradition of printed texts published during the time of the Protestant Reformation, that is, the 1500’s and early 1600’s. It includes the editions of Erasmus, Estienne (Stephens), Beza, and Elzevir. These texts are closely allied, and are all mostly derived from Erasmus 1516. They are based upon a small number of late medieval manuscripts. The King James Version is based upon the Received Text.

"The Majority Text is derived from the plurality of all existing Greek manuscripts; but because most of these manuscripts are late medieval manuscripts, there is a family resemblance between the Received Text and the Majority Text. They agree with one another much more than either of them agree with the critical Greek texts published by scholars in the past two hundred years. These critical texts are based upon the oldest manuscripts and versions (from the 100’s to the 600’s), and agree with one another much more than any of them agree with the Received Text or the Majority Text.

“And so it is appropriate to say that the texts in question fall into two groups: (1) The kind of text found in the majority of medieval manuscripts (often called the ‘Byzantine’ text-type); and (2) the ancient type of text which is exhibited in our oldest available manuscripts (often called the ‘Alexandrian’ text-type).”

While the KJV and the NKJV are renderings of the “Byzantine” text type, the RSV, the RSV-CE, and most of the other modern translations are based on the “Alexandrian” text type.

I’m not sure to what you are referring in your last unfinished sentence.

I’ll have to dig up the article on the Majority text.

I really need to start saving all this stuff neatly on my hard drive, instead of trying to always look it up online.

I’m not sure to what you are referring in your last unfinished sentence.

I am referring to the exclusive use of the Majority text by the ‘modern’ translations. If they use other sources, then I am unaware of it.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

If by “it” you mean the Nova Vulgata, then the latter is used in the LATIN texts of official Church documents. But the Lectionary for Mass is not translated from it, since liturgical texts were expected to be translated from the original languages; this was reinforced by Liturgiam Authenticam.

However, I believe that by “it” you meant the Johannine Comma, in which case your statement above is accurate, though ambiguous.

Restating this and removing all pronouns:

And while the Nova Vulgata is the new official Bible of the Catholic Church, that means that the Johannine Comma probably won’t be used in any official documents nor heard from the Lectionary. But, as far as I know, the Johannine Comma is still open as a matter of scholastic debate.

 

[Manfred]

Hello,

I am referring to the exclusive use of the Majority text by the ‘modern’ translations. If they use other sources, then I am unaware of it.

“Modern” translations, other than the NKJV, are not based on the “Majority” text, but on a more critical, older text type, the Alexandrian, represented in the Nestle-Aland or UBS editions. This is true of the RSV, NRSV, NAB, NIV, NJB, NASB, to name a few.

As Marlowe’s article stated, the “Majority” text is closer to the textus receptus, derived from Greek manuscripts of the (very) late Middle Ages.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I don’t think that most of the Catholic church would have gotten most of the ancient texts wrong which did not include the Johannine Comma.

Saying that would open the door to saying that most of the Catholic Church got the book of the bible wrong, too or any number of things wrong.

When the Nova Vulgata translators chose not to include it–that was not a decision by a bunch of modernists.

And I don’t think that John Paul II was ignorant of the Johannine Comma and would have authorized the Nova Vulgata without any thought of the Johannine Comma whatsoever–but I could be wrong on that.

The reason i don’t believ in the Comma–althought i wish it were true–is i just don’t believe that thousands of texts written by Catholics over the centuries would have been wrong while only a handful would be right–and on top of that that the comma would have been absent from discussions about the Trinity.

Believeing that Arians could have suppressed it is about as ridiculous as believing as the Protestants maintain that Catholics suppressed the real contents of the bible.

So I wish the Comma were true but the weight of the number of texts does seem to be against it.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

“Modern” translations, other than the NKJV, are not based on the “Majority” text, but on a more critical, older text type, the Alexandrian, represented in the Nestle-Aland or UBS editions. This is true of the RSV, NRSV, NAB, NIV, NJB, NASB, to name a few.

As Marlowe’s article stated, the “Majority” text is closer to the textus receptus, derived from Greek manuscripts of the (very) late Middle Ages.

This I was unaware of that. But, in my opinion, any version or translation that omits the Comma is in error for doing so.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

The reason i don’t believ in the Comma–althought i wish it were true–is i just don’t believe that thousands of texts written by Catholics over the centuries would have been wrong while only a handful would be right–and on top of that that the comma would have been absent from discussions about the Trinity.

Most of the debate is on the Greek - whether it is present in the Greek copies or not. I don’t believe that there were that many Greek versions being copied by the Latin monks during the Middle Ages and early Renaissance - they would have been working with almost exclusively a Latin text and a handful of vernacular translations.