|
|
|
|
The Johannine Comma IntroductionExternal EvidenceInternal Evidence |
|
Introduction |
One of the most hotly contested passages of Scripture is so well known that it has a name - the Comma Johanneum, or Johannine Comma. In this case, "comma" refers not to punctuation but to a clause. In the KJV, I John 5:7-8 reads as follows: I John 5: However the Comma, the portion in bold above, is not found in the vast majority of Greek manuscripts. Most scholars consider it an interpolation, and modern versions omit it. The NASB, for example, reads: I John 5: Until recently I was under the impression that this passage was universally recognized as an interpolation or late addition, only appearing in the last 500 years or so. However I have recently found that there is a small faction that defends the authenticity of the Comma, and presents evidence for an earlier existence of it. Upon examination of this evidence, it appears that the passage may be older than previously thought, although there is by no means a consensus among scholars.
|
|
The following is the analysis of the passage, by Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, from his book, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart, 1993). (Hereafter referred to as TCGNT.)
The Comma was not included in the first two editions of Erasmus' Greek text. It is often reported that he promised to include it in a later edition if a single Greek MS could be found. The story goes that after making that promise, a MS was produced which many have suspected of being forged for that purpose. Metzger wrote, "Erasmus promised that he would insert the Comma Johanneum, as it is called, in future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a copy was found—or made to order." However, on pg 291 (n2) of the (new) 3rd edition of The Text of the New Testament, Metzger writes: What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus' promise to include the Comma Johanneum if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent suspicion that MS. 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H.J. de Jonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion; see his "Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum", Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, lvi (1980), pp 381-9. In the above mentioned work, de Jonge wrote, "For the sake of his ideal Erasmus chose to avoid any occasion for slander rather than persisting in philological accuracy and thus condemning himself to impotence. That was the reason why Erasmus included the Comma Johanneum even though he remained convinced that it did not belong to the original text of l John." The evidence for the Comma in Greek MSS is extremely weak. However, there are those who cite evidence from the Latin MSS. There are many that contain the Comma, but it is not in the oldest ones. An excerpt from Dr. Thomas Holland's Crowned With Glory is quoted on The King James Bible Page. While the Greek textual evidence is weak, the Latin textual evidence for the Comma is extremely strong. It is in the vast majority of the Old Latin manuscripts, which outnumber the Greek manuscripts. Although some doubt if the Comma was a part of Jerome's original Vulgate, the evidence suggests that it was. Jerome states: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. The above quote from Jerome comes from his Prologue to the Canonical Epistles. However, even the Catholic Encyclopedia states that "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." According to Metzger's TCGNT, "The Codex Fuldensis, a copy of the Vulgate made around 546, contains a copy of Jerome's Prologue to the Canonical Gospels which seems to reference the Comma, but the Codex's version of 1 John omits it, which has led many to believe that the Prologue's reference is spurious." Although the Comma is not found in the earliest form of the Old Latin MSS or Jerome's Vulgate, it is pointed out that there are a few Latin Fathers who quote the passage, suggesting that they knew of earlier MSS that no longer exist. Earliest among these is Tertullian (200 AD). He wrote, "These Three are one essence not one Person, as it is said, 'I and my Father are One' [John 10:30] in respect of unity of Being not singularity of number" (Against Praxeas, 25). However, he only uses the phrase "these three are one" and does not specifically refer to John's epistle. The next earliest is Cyprian (c. 250 AD). "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'" (Treatise 8, ch.3). Here again he does not refer to John by name, but many consider this to be an indirect reference. However, the fact that he used the words, "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit," rather than "the Father, the Word, and the Spirit," makes it questionable as to whether he was actually quoting John's epistle. Daniel B. Wallace, in The Comma Johanneum and Cyprian, writes:
The first Latin Father to actually quote I John 5 is Priscillian (c. 380 AD). "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.'"(Liber Apologeticus). Metzger refers to this first instance in TCGNT: The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text. In the fifth century the gloss was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy as part of the text of the Epistle, and from the sixth century onwards it is found more and more frequently in manuscripts of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate. In these various witnesses the wording of the passage differs in several particulars. So it is questionable as to whether any Latin Fathers quoted the passage before the fourth century. If it indeed was in earlier Greek MSS, it would be very hard to explain its absence in the vast majority. Metzger wrote, "As regards transcriptional probability, if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions."
| |
|
Perhaps the most compelling evidence presented in favor of the Comma is the argument from Greek grammar. In another excerpt from his book on the King James Bible page, Dr. Thomas Holland, writes: But what is most compelling is the Greek text itself. The phrase in verse 8, "to pneuma, kai to udor, kai to aima (the Spirit, and the water, and the blood)" are all neuter nouns. They are, however, contiguous with the phrase, "oi marturountes (who bare witness)" which stands in the masculine (as does the Greek word for three, treis). The proper grammatical explanation for this, mixing the neuter and the masculine, is that the parallel is introduced in verse 7. There we find the phrase, "o pater, o logos, kai to agion pneuma (the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost)" which are masculine nouns (with the exception of the Holy Ghost, which stands in the neuter). This would allow for the masculine "oi marturountes" since the clause contains two masculine nouns. If, on the other hand, the masculine nouns of verse 7 are removed we are at a loss as to why the masculine is used in verse 8. Therefore, the inclusion of the Comma is not only proper theology, it is proper Greek. However, this argument is not convincing to many other scholars. The following is from the Wikipedia article, Comma Johanneum:
So the internal evidence regarding the Greek grammar has more than one possible explanation, and does not conclusively prove the authenticity of the Comma. Finally, the internal evidence in the English itself should be considered. Metzger wrote, "As regards intrinsic probability, the passage makes an awkward break in the sense." The first five verses of chapter 5 introduce the subject, talking about those that believe that Jesus is the Christ, and the Son of God. Beginning in verse 6 it expounds on the proof of who Jesus is. I John 5 (NASB): The whole point of the passage is the testimony that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah. Verse six says he came by water and blood, and it is the spirit that testified. There are a number of opinions as to exactly what the water and the blood represent. Personally I lean toward the water referring to his baptism, and the blood to his death. But whatever they mean, we have the spirit and the water and the blood in verse six. Then in verse seven and eight it says there are three that testify, the spirit and the water and the blood, and they are in agreement. Verse nine continues the same thought, that if we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater. If the Comma is included, the whole flow of thought would be interrupted by the "three witnesses in heaven" which has nothing to do with the testimony of Christ on earth, which is the subject of the passage. Mike Sarkissian, in his article, A Critical Examination and Exegesis of 1 John 5:7 on BiblicalThought.com, writes the following: Since God is giving His testimony about Jesus being the incarnate Son it would seem awkward if the Johannine Comma were placed in the passage. For the apostle introduces Christ as coming by water and blood in verse six. In this context John is talking about the testimony of the Father to the Son. Specifically, that testimony while Jesus was on earth. For him to immediately say that there are three witnesses in heaven, "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" and then to reiterate the testimony on earth, "the Spirit, the water and the blood" seems awkward to say the least. It should be noted that Sarkissian is a Trinitarian, so he would not be biased toward the omission of the Comma. Like most Trinitarians, he claims that, "The lack of authenticity of this passage absolutely in no way affects the Biblical witness as to who Jesus is – the Second Person of the Triune God." Similarly, the inclusion of the Comma in no way strengthens the argument in favor of the Trinity, since the passage does not say that the three are "one essence" or "one substance" and nowhere does it say "three persons in one God." Therefore, even if the passage was in the original, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit can be understood as being "one" in the same sense that Jesus and the Father are "one" in John 10:30, and that all may be "one" in John 17:21-22. As with many disputed passages in the Bible, there will probably never be a 100% consensus about the Johannine Comma. But there is abundant reason to question its validity, and the recognition of this fact has caused many Trinitarians to no longer use it as a "proof text" for the Trinity. (See Who Is Messiah?)
|
