Comma Johanneum: A Critical Textual Evaluation of 1 John 5:7-8
5:7 For three are the ones testifying in the heavens: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.
5:8 And three are the ones testifying in {the} earth: the Spirit and the water and the blood, and {the} three 2in 3the 4one 1are.
Only the Textus Receptus contains, namely, the “Trinitarian Statement” [letters in bold in verses 7 and 8] concerning “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost” (5:7) and “And there are three that bear witness on earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood” (5:8). This infamous interpolation is known as the Comma Johanneum or Johannine Comma. The word Comma derived from the Greek word “komma,” meaning a single clause or phrase with a comma in ancient Greek rhetoric. [1] It provides a sense of a series of additional words being inserted within the sentence. The infamous Comma was first introduced in the 16th century by humanist Desiderius Erasmus in his 3rd and later editions of the Greek New Testament Bible. The King James translation embraces the Comma, subsequently claiming that it is also the inspired Word of God. [2] However, both internal and external evidence contradicts this claim.
The external evidence suggests that the Textus Receptus reading of 5:7-8 is a forgery. Erasmus did add, “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth” (1 John 5:7-8, King James Version). The Comma was absent from Erasmus’s first publication of the Greek New Testament in 1516 and his second edition in 1519, since he did not find it in the sources available to him. However, he restored it in the third edition in 1922 after he supposedly promised to add Comma if someone could show him the manuscript that had Comma. [3] Still, he implied his suspicion of the text in his lengthy footnotes in his later editions that the manuscript was produced to invalidate his work.
Noted New Testament scholars Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman also write that only eight Greek manuscripts among thousands of manuscripts have the Comma:
Among the thousands of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament examined since the time of Erasmus, only eight are known to contain this passage. In four of the eight, the Comma appears in the text; in the other four, it is a marginal addition serving as an alternative or variant reading. [4]
Furthermore, Metzger testifies that the Comma appears in the Latin Vulgate no later than 800 A.D. The passage was included in the Clementine edition of the Latin Vulgate in 1592, and its presence has remained continuous until this day, following an authoritative pronouncement by the high ecclesiastical Holy Office of Rome with approval and confirmation from Pope Leo XIII in 1897. [5] Therefore, it is safe to say, in light of the Trinitarian Controversy (Sabellian and Arian), that no church fathers were ever quoted in the council or their works, nor did any ancient manuscripts of all versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Slavonic, and Arabic) contain it [6], so the passage is a later added text in the First Epistle of John.
All Bible versions except the KJV have omitted the phrase or put it in brackets with a footnote explanation. The KJV retains the Comma, believing the Latin is equally inspired as the Greek from God. Thus, the KJV claims that it is the best or “only holy” Bible and rejects the Evangelical understanding of the Comma Johanneum.
Does the omission of the Comma affect the cardinal doctrine of the Trinity?
Absolutely not. The excessively zealous Bible believers use 1 John 5:7-8 explicitly to claim the three Godheads of the Trinity, but the textual evidence says otherwise. The doctrine of the Trinity is unaffected by the omission of the bold phrases in verses 7 and 8, as there are many Scriptural references for it in the Synoptic Gospels and Epistles. The theophanies in the Old Testament are also interpreted as references to the Trinity.
Defense of the Pericope (1 John 5:5-12)
δε as a paragraph marker in 5:5
The beginning of verse 5:5 can be treated as a new paragraph, since “δε” [de] is functioning as a paragraph marker that echoes previous verses. The verse is the interrogative summation of the previous unit (see verses 1–4). Nestle-Aland’s Novum Testamentum Graece also breaks a paragraph after verse 4 and begins a new one. [7] However, they also mark out δε [de] as a variant because some manuscripts omit it.
γενναω (gennaw) and μαρτυρεω (marturew) as a paradigm shift in subject matter:
The great schema in 5:1-4 contains the various forms of γενναω, conveying the idea of being born of God. The comprehensive extension of being born of God also covers the subject matter of discerning the truth, loving God, and keeping his commandments. Here, we see man’s “doing” part as a recipient of God’s passive action.
However, it changes in 5:5b-12 by affirming incarnational Christology forcefully. Now, the greater scheme of the passage focuses on the authenticity of the μαρτυρεω that one ought to receive. Gary M. Burge writes, “Of the seventeen uses of the word ‘group’ for ‘testify/testimony’ in John’s letters, ten of them appear in these few verses.” [8] The repeating uses of μαρτυρεω imply the contention of John’s theological concern. We see God’s active action as testifying of himself to us. We are the recipient of his action. These two units (verses 5:1-4 and 5:5-12) address different but related subject matters. Thus, it is distinctly possible to treat 5:5-12 as a single unit in the letter body.
Outlines of the Passage
1. The testimony of the Water and Blood (5:5–6b)
Not only by the water but by the water and the blood
Emphatic sentence structure
2. The testimony of the Spirit (5:6c–8)
The Spirit is the truth
Credence of the Spirit in the testimony
3. The testimony of the Father (5:9–12)
Father himself testifies concerning his Son
The eternal life comes from the Son
Whoever has the Son has life
The outlines are based on the grammatical issues of the text as well as literary issues. Without applying the Greek conditional term to make a conditional point, John makes a clear logical implication in 12a and 12b.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Authorship:
Apostle John, son of Zebedee [9], is believed to be the author of the Epistle that bears his name. Christian tradition attributes this epistle to the apostle, even though the Epistle does not explicitly identify the author’s name; it only refers to the author as “the elder” in the second and third epistles. [10] “The elder” could mean any man of high reputation in society. But it is also undeniable that the apostles were referred to as “elders” in the ancient biblical times. [11] Nevertheless, attributing the letters to John is still a difficult job, as Eusebius (Church History, 3.39.3) provides a reference to two “Johns,” one being the apostle and the other possibly an elder who lived later. [12] But the external and internal evidence directs us to the Apostle himself.
Early church fathers had known John as the author of the Epistles. Polycarp, Papias, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, and Irenaeus were the ones who ascribed these letters to John. They quoted John in their works. Editor duo H.D.M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell affirm:
The First Epistle was known to St. Polycarp, the disciple of St. John, and is quoted as his by St. Irenaeus, the pupil of St. Polycarp. Papias, the contemporary of Polycarp, made use of it. It is repeatedly quoted as St. John’s by Clement of Alexandria and even more frequently by Tertullian, who seems to have been especially fond of the Epistle. The century immediately following St. John’s death is well populated with witnesses. Origen and his pupil Dionysius of Alexandria, St. Cyprian, and, in short, all the Fathers, Greek and Latin, accept the Epistle as St. John’s. [13]
The external evidence is convincing enough to establish the Apostle John as the author of these letters.
Regarding internal evidence, the Gospel of John and the First Epistle of John have so much in common. They share similar characteristics such as vocabulary, sentence structure, concepts (light and darkness, life and death, etc.), and expression. [14] Parallel writing style, vocabulary, content, etc., and external references as evidence confirm that the Apostle John is the author of the letters.
Origination and Destination of the Epistle, and Reason:
Unlike major Pauline Epistles, First John does not strictly follow any letter structure whatsoever. It avoids an “introductory address, greeting, or salutations from the author.” [15] Therefore, it begins with a prologue. However, the internal references, such as “my children,” point out the Apostle John’s close familiarity with his audience. Spence and Exell also argue that the lovesome address “little children” implies primarily “those whom the apostle shepherded while still on earth.” [16] This remark is convincing, since the Apostle has not penned any inscriptions in the Epistle.
The traditional view recognizes the origination of Johannine work as from Asia Minor. Lack of special superscription of specific individuals or churches also supports the view that the First John might have been circulated in Christian churches in Asia Minor. Moreover, 1 John clearly reflects the purpose of writing, given that the heresies addressed in the letters were well-established in this area. [17] Gnostic teaching was infiltrating the churches in the same area. Gnosticism, Docetism, and Cerinthianism certainly emerged in Ephesus, and the connection between the fourth Gospel of John and the Epistles also reinforces the traditional view of their origin and intended audience.
Undoubtedly, the Apostle John’s purpose becomes clearer as the reading of the Scripture progresses. His main purpose was to assure the churches of their faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Elwell corroborates the purpose and reason behind writing 1 John:
The primary purpose was to assure readers of their fellowship in Christ and eternal life and to encourage maturity. The author also aimed to refute emerging heretical doctrines that denied either Christ’s true divinity or humanity, as well as heretical ethics that suggested sin is either nonexistent or inconsequential to one’s relationship with God. [19]
In other words, this letter was meant to help the congregation to stay firm in their faith as well as grow in spiritual maturity in the midst of chaos and conflict in the Johannine community caused by dissenters (see 1 John 2:18).
GRAMMATICAL AND LITERARY ISSUES
In 1 John 5:5-12, the Apostle John was addressing the churches in Asia Minor in general. As a leader of the church in Ephesus, he was reasoning why believing in Jesus makes sense, because he is one who was testified to by God himself. In the pericope, the word group for “believe/believing” from various tense forms of πιστευω (pisteuw) repeatedly occurs four times. The Apostle John chose the same word, πιστευων [20], for verses 5 and 10, which he used in the Gospel of John 3:15-16, 36. He was emphasizing genuine and unadulterated belief in Christ from his audience.
It is “to believe” or “put trust in” or “entrust, especially one’s spiritual well-being, to Christ.” [21] In this sense, it implies not simply believing something, but it demands our full conviction and confidence on account of what we believe. That is, in the New Testament, referring to trust in Jesus or God for saving faith. [22] Thus, the application of “believing” in these two verses, 5 and 10, is to affirm Jesus as the Son of God, and it has the direct consequence of receiving eternal life.
As mentioned earlier, various tense and mood forms of μαρτυρεω appear in the designated passage, occurring ten out of the seventeen times it is used in the Epistle. It is 58.82 percent of total uses in the single passage. According to Mounce, μαρτυρεω means “to bear witness, to testify,” or “to give evidence.” He also singled out μαρτυρία in 1 John 5:9 as “testimony, declaration in a matter of fact or doctrine.” [23] The comparative degree effectively shows the magnitude of divine testimony to man and is appealing and persuasive in nature (see verses 5:1, 5, and 10-11).
These two repetitive keywords in the passage are tied to the rest of the book. Trust in Christ as the Son of God is the prerequisite and indispensable element to secure the testimony of God in the human soul. Thus, believing in God and the testimony of God have an absolute correlation with the Christological test and the saving knowledge of Christ because God himself testified about the Son (vss. 6–12).
John used metaphors like water and blood to express his theological concerns about the person and work of Jesus Christ. The distinctive characteristic of the Apostle’s writing style, that two contrastive ideas run parallel, is exhibited in the Epistle as well. Having the Son has life, and not having the Son has no life [24]. This idea is one of the distinctive features that John used commonly in his Gospel. The Epistle did not, so to speak, follow letter format; only contrastive parallel concepts or repetition of the words served as the letter structure device in this passage.
Footnotes:
[1] Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), 101. Print. For a detailed discussion on the subject, see Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 2nd ed., 101-06.
[2] Donald L. Brake, A Visual History of the English Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2008), 225. Print.
[3] Henk Jan de Jonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies, however, did not find any explicit evidence of a specific promise made by Erasmus to Stunica; for details, see his “Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum,”” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, Ivi (1980), pp. 381-9.
[4] Metzger and Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 147. Print. The book contains detailed information on the eight manuscripts listed according to Gregory-Aland enumeration. 61: the Codex Montfortianus, an early sixteenth-century manuscript; 88v.r.: a variant reading in a twelfth-century Codex Regius at Naples; 221v.r.: a variant reading dating from a tenth-century manuscript; 429v.r.: a variant reading from a fifteenth-century manuscript; 629v.r.: the Codex Ottobonianus at the Vatican dating from the fourteenth century and revised later according to the Vulgate; 636v.r.: a variant reading dating from the fifteenth century at Naples; 918: a sixteenth-century manuscript at the Escorial, Spain; and 2318: an eighteenth-century manuscript, which is heavily influenced by the Clementine Vulgate, at Bucharest, Romania. For more details, see Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, pages 147-48.
[5] Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), 102. Print.
[6] Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., 4th revised print (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, D-Stuttgart, 2002), 648, Print.
[7] Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993), see 1 John 5:5.
[8] Burge, The NIV Application Commentary: Letters of John (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 201. Print. μαρτυρεω (to witness, testify) appears in 5:6, 7, 9 (4x), 10 (3x), and 11.
[9] Mark 1:19-20. Apostle is referred to as the son of Zebedee.
[10] See 2 John 1; 3 John 1. The Greek term πρεσβυτερος (presbuteros) is used in both openings of the Letters.
[11] Burge, The NIV Application Commentary, p. 38.
[12] Ibid.
[13] H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1983), ii. Print.
[14] See the NASB Study Bible for a detailed chart.
[15] Robert Horton Gundry, “First John.” Commentary on the New Testament: Verse-by-verse Explanations with a Literal Translation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010), 968-84. Print.
[16] Spence and Exell, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1983), vi. Print.
[17] Burge, The NIV Application Commentary, see 40. This area refers to Asia Minor. Gnosticism was on the rise during the Apostle’s ministry there. They were the great threat to the surrounding churches at that time.
[18] W. Robertson Nicoll, and Oscar Loos Joseph. Preface. The Expositor’s Bible: a Complete Exposition of the Bible with Index (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1982), 757. Print. Cerinthians believed that the divine Christ came to join the human Jesus in the baptism and the divine Christ left the human Jesus before his death on the cross. They thought that God could not die or be killed, so he had to leave Jesus alone to suffer. See NASB Study Bible for Cerinthianism, 1829.
[19] James B. De Young, “1-3 John.” Introduction. Ed. Walter A. Elwell. Baker Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2006), 1177-186. Print.
[20] πιστευων (pisteuwn) V-PAP-NSM means “believing,” where the subject is understood as it is modifying the ό νικων.
[21] Strong, Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionary, e-Sword, Ver. 9.8.3, Dictionary, 1 John 5:5 and 10. Computer Software. For further information, see Strong’s Number G4100.
[22] Thayer, Thayer’s Greek Definitions, e-Sword, Ver. 9.8.3, Dictionary, 1 John 5:5, 10. Computer Software. See Thayer’s/Strong’s Number G4102.
[23] William D. Mounce, Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), 1205-06, Print.
[24] 1 John 5:11-12.
