The Added Words In 1 John 5: 7-8
In the King James Version (KJV) of the English Bible, 1 John 5:7-8 reads as follows:
[7] “For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. [8] And there are three that bear witness in earth] the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” (1 John 5:7-8 KJV, square brackets and red letter emphasis added by me).
There are many Christians who are unaware of the fact that the words starting with “in heaven” (verse 7) and ending with “in earth” (verse 8), that is, all the red letter words within the square brackets, are not part of the original Koine Greek writing of Apostle John. The words were initially marginal notes (gloss) made in some early Latin manuscripts but were later added to the main text in some late Latin manuscripts by some overzealous scribes. These added words have become known as Comma Johanneum or the Johannine Comma. (The word “comma” is derived from the Greek komma which means segment or clause.)In this article, it will simply be called the Comma.
The story of this interpolation is a long one, but as far as its insertion into the Greek text is concerned, it is traceable to the Textus Receptus (TR), the work of a Dutch Catholic priest known as Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536). The first edition of his printed Greek New Testament, the Novum Instrumentum omne: diligenter ab Erasmo Roterodamo recognitum et emendatum was published by him in 1516. The second edition in which he changed the name to Novum Testamentum was published in 1519. These two editions did not contain the Comma. When he was questioned by the Roman Catholic Church about the absence of the Comma in his publication, his answer was that he did not see the Comma in any of the Greek manuscripts at his disposal.
Under pressure from the Roman church, he promised that if a single manuscript with the Comma could be shown to him, he would include it in his subsequent editions. He was thereafter shown a manuscript, Codex Montfortianus (or Codex 61), written in circa 1520, which had the Comma in it. This codex, written in minuscule, was apparently written with the intent to force Erasmus to include the Comma in his later editions. Although it was obvious to him that Codex 61 was written to achieve an ulterior motive, he nonetheless included it in the third (1522), and those of the fourth (1527) and fifth (1535) editions of his Novum Testamentum. It is the opinion of many scholars that Erasmus did not contest the authority of Codex 61, not only just because he wanted to uphold his reputation by fulfilling his promise, but also because he did not want to see his publication go unsold.
Generally speaking, the “Textus Receptus” (Latin words meaning “Received Texts”) refers to all the printed editions of the Greek New Testament, beginning with Erasmus’s Novum Instrumentum omne. They include the 1551 edition of the Greek New Testament by Robert Estienne, a printer and scholar, also known as Robert Staphani, or Stephanus. His Greek New Testament became the first New Testament with verses. The TR also includes the Greek New Testament published by Theodore Beza in 1559. But the work of Erasmus served as the basis of all other Greek New Testaments. (Although the term Textus Receptus originated from the publisher’s preface to the 1633 edition of Greek New Testament produced by Bonaventura Elzevir and his nephew, Abraham Elzevir, the term has been retroactively applied to Erasmus’s editions and the other publications to which his work served as the basis.)
Since English translations such as the Coverdale Bible published in 1535, the Geneva Bible in 1560, Bishops’ Bible in 1568, and the King James Bible in 1611, had the TR as their textual basis, it is not surprising that they had the Comma in them.
Of all the English versions available today, only the King James Version (KJV) and the New King James Version (NKJV) still have the Comma in them. All the other versions, many of whose publishers are known Trinitarians, have openly stated that the Comma was an unjustifiable interpolation in 1 John 5:7-8.
It should be noted that the first Latin Vulgate produced by Jerome, and published in 405 CE, did not contain the Comma. A prologue attributed to him that defended the text has been proved to be a false one.
Neither do the oldest extant Greek manuscripts, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, contain it. An excerpt from Codex Sinaiticus, including 1 John 5:7-9, is the following: The red coloured part of the text reads: “There are three witness bearers, the spirit and the water and the blood.”
What Was Apostle John Trying To Teach In 1 John 5:7-9?
One motif that clearly runs through the gospel and letters of Apostle John is his contention that Jesus was indeed the Son of God, the one whom God had anointed and sent to the world as the Messiah. See, for eexample John 3:16-18; 1 John 1:7; 2:22-23; 3:8, 23; 4:9-15. This is understandable, knowing the fact that most people of his time never accepted our Lord Jesus as the promised Messiah. See, for example, Matt. 13:54-58; 26:63; 27:40-44; Mark 6:2-3; Luke 22:70-71; 23:35; John 7:26, 48; 10:33-36. To this day the orthodox belief of the Jews is that the promised Messiah is yet to come. They are still awaiting the coming of the Messiah (Greek: Χριστὸς Romanised as Christos, and Anglicised as Christ). The word means Anointed One, the Messiah.
Here in chapter 5 of 1 John, the apostle continued writing on this all-important theme. In verse 1, he wrote, ”Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well” (NIVUK). In verse 5 he wrote, ”Who is it that overcomes the world? Only the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.” Then, in verse 6, he wrote, ”This is the one who came by water and blood [implying his human birth] – Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.” This is another way of reiterating the fact that the Messiah or the Christ came in the flesh, that is, as a human being (John 1:14; 1 John 4:2). The point Apostle John was making was that although Jesus came as a human being, he was the promised Messiah. He summed up his argument by saying that God Himself testified to this fact. In verse 9 he said, ”If we accept the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, because this is the testimony of God that he has testified concerning his Son.” (1 John 5:9 NET). It was therefore wrong for the Jews to regard Jesus as someone no more than the carpenter’s son, or the carpenter, the son of Mary (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3). In other words Jesus was a mere human being fathered by Joseph and Mary, but not the Christ.
In verse 6, Apostle John said the Spirit testified about Christ’s sonship. The “Spirit” here is most likely to refer to God Himself who spoke from heaven (Matt. 3:16; cf. John 4:24; 8:18; 1 John 5:9). But the spirit mentioned in verse 7 is not the same as the one mentioned in verse 6. The “spirit” in verse 7 is most likely to be the power of God with which God baptised His Son immediately after John the Baptist had immersed him in the water of River Jordan (Matt. 3:16). See also John 4:24 and 2 Corinthians 3:17 where “spirit” is used to mean two different entities. The power or breath of God that was made visible in the form of a dove, and in the form of tongues of fire at the baptism of his followers (Acts 2), together with the water and the blood which poured out of Mary at his birth, are the three things Apostle John gave as testifying to the fact that the human Jesus was indeed the promised Messiah or the Christ, the Son of God.
Apostle John’s gospel and letters were written towards the end of the first century CE. In his epistles, he was obviously confronting some false teachings in his days. It is believed that he was confronting the false teachings of the Gnostics about the Lord Jesus Christ. The Associated Bible Students, USA, published a book in 1997 titled “The Doctrine Of Christ.” On pages 44/45, they wrote the following:
“What was John addressing here? For an answer we quote McClintock & Strong: “Irenaeus says, ‘Cerinthus taught that the world was not made by the supreme God, but by a certain power (Demiurge), separate from Him, and below Him, and ignorant of Him. Jesus he supposed not to be born of a virgin, but to be the son of Joseph and Mary, born altogether as other men are; but he excelled all men in virtue, knowledge, and wisdom. At His baptism, the Christ came down upon Him, from God who is over all, in the shape of a dove; and then He [Jesus] declared to the world the unknown Father, and wrought miracles. At the end, the Christ left Jesus, and Jesus suffered and rose again, but the Christ being spiritual, was impassible.’ This view presents Jesus as a mere man fathered by Joseph, who later became possessed by Christ at Jordan and deserted by Christ before Jesus was crucified. Hence, Christ did not come in the flesh, nor did he suffer in the flesh, but simply took possession of a man named Jesus from Jordan and left him before he was crucified. Under this teaching, Christ neither suffered nor died. It was Jesus the man who suffered and died and was resurrected. This concept may have arisen from the practice of demons entering fleshly bodies to possess them, such as evidently was fairly commonplace in Jesus’ day.”
They further wrote, “We refer again to McClintock & Strong on Cerinthus: ‘The account of Irenaeus is that he [Cerinthus] appeared about the year 88, and was known to St. John, who wrote his Gospel in refutation of his errors.’”
We have seen from the apostle’s writing that he was defending the truth about the humanity of the Christ. In other words, contrary to the false teaching of Cerinthus, the human Jesus was the promised Christ, not fathered by Joseph but by God. The insertion of the concept of Trinity into 1 John 5:7-8, a manmade doctrine which was alien to John and the other apostles, distorted the flow of John’s thought in the immediate context. Our Lord Jesus Christ himself never taught anyone that the one God is a tripersonal Deity.
Some Scholarly Comments on the Comma Johanneum
Many Bible scholars and commentators, some of whom are professed Trinitarians, have stated unequivocally that the Comma was a spurious insertion in 1 John 5:7-8. Here, I cite excerpts from some of them.
Adam Clarke (1762-1832), the British Methodist theologian, who worked very hard and gained mastery in manuscripts, commented as follows:
“But it is likely this verse is not genuine. It is wanting [not found] in every MS. [manuscript] of this epistle written before the invention of printing, one excepted, the Codex Montfortii, in Trinity College, Dublin: the others which omit this verse amount to one hundred and twelve. It is wanting [not found] in both the Syriac, all the Arabic, Ethiopic, the Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, Slavonian, etc., in a word, in all the ancient versions but the Vulgate; and even of this version many of the most ancient and correct MSS. [manuscripts] have it not. It is wanting also in all the ancient Greek fathers; and in most even of the Latin.”
The renowned textual critic of our time, Professor Bruce M. Metzger, in his book, “A Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament” wrote:
“After μαρτυροῦντες the Textus Receptus adds the following: ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἔν εἰσι. 8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ. That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain in the light of the following considerations.
(A) External Evidence.
(1) The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript. The eight manuscripts are as follows:
61: codex Montfortianus, dating from the early sixteenth century.
88: a variant reading in a sixteenth century hand, added to the fourteenth-century codex Regius of Naples.
221: a variant reading added to a tenth-century manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
429: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Wolfenbüttel.
629: a fourteenth or fifteenth century manuscript in the Vatican.
636: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Naples.
918: a sixteenth-century manuscript at the Escorial, Spain.
2318: an eighteenth-century manuscript, influenced by the Clementine Vulgate, at Bucharest, Rumania.
(2) The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.
(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied a.d. 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before a.d. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).
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. (For examples of other intrusions into the Latin text of 1 John, see 2.17; 4.3; 5.6, and 20.)”
Professor Metzger also gave some internal probabilities that the Comma was spurious, that is, of a falsified or erroneously attributed origin, or not genuine. In other words, it was a forgery. Metzger gave the following as the internal probabilities:
“(1) 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.
(2) As regards intrinsic probability, the passage makes an awkward break in the sense.”
Another textual critic, Frederick H. A. Scrivener (1813-1891), in the third (1883) edition of his book titled “A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament,” wrote: “We need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by St. John: that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 8: that from the Latin they crept into two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the printed Greek text, a place to which they had no rightful claim.”— page 654.
Another textual critic, Bart Denton Ehrman, Mdiv, PhD said, “…this represents the most obvious instance of a theologically motivated corruption in the entire manuscript tradition of the New Testament.”
Thomas Nelson and Sons Catholic Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, 1951, page 1186 states: “It is now generally held that this passage, called the Comma Johanneum, is a gloss that crept into the text of the Old Latin and Vulgate at an early date, but found its way into the Greek text only in the 15th and 16th centuries.”
The New English Translation (NET) Bible’s note on the Comma include the following:
“Before τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα (to pneuma kai to {udwr kai to |aima), the Textus Receptus (TR) reads ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. 5:8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ (“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth”). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence – both external and internal – is decidedly against its authenticity. For a detailed discussion, see TCGNT 647-49. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence. This longer reading is found only in nine late mss [manuscripts], four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these mss (221, 2318 [18th century] {2473 [dated 1634]} and [with minor variations] 61, 88, 429, 629, 636, 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest ms [manuscript], codex 221 (10th century) includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. The oldest ms [manuscript] with the Comma in its text is from the 14th century (629), but the wording here departs from all the other mss in several places. The next oldest mss on behalf of the Comma, 88 (12th century) 429 (14th) 636 (15th), also have the reading only as a marginal note (v.l.). The remaining mss are from the 16th to 18th centuries. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek ms until the 14th century (629), and that ms deviates from all others in its wording; the wording that matches what is found in the TR was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the Comma appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either ms, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until A.D. 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. The reading seems to have arisen in a 4th century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared, there arose such a furor [furore] over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek mss that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written in ca. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this ms sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text, as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever mss he could for the production of his text. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: He did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold. Modern advocates of the TR and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings – even in places where the TR/Byzantine mss lack them. Further, these advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: Since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. (Of course, this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text.) In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum goes back to the original text yet does not appear until the 14th century in any Greek mss (and that form is significantly different from what is printed in the TR; the wording of the TR is not found in any Greek mss until the 16th century)? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: Faith must be rooted in history. Significantly, the German translation of Luther was based on Erasmus’ second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza’s 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus’ third and later editions (and Stephanus’ editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others.”
Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727), the English mathematician and scholar, wrote a dissertation titled “An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture” and sent it in a letter to John Locke on 14 November 1690. It was built upon the textual work of Richard Simon and his own research. The text was first published in English in 1754, 27 years after his death. The account claimed to review all the textual evidence available from ancient sources on two disputed Bible passages: 1 John 5:7 and 1 Timothy 3:16. Newton described this letter as “an account of what the reading has been in all ages, and what steps it has been changed, as far as I can hitherto determine by records,” and “a criticism concerning a text of Scripture.” He blamed the Roman [Catholic] church “for many abuses in the world” and accused it of “pious frauds.” He added that “the more learned and quick-sighted men as Luther, Erasmus, Bullinger, Grotius, and some others, would not dissemble their knowledge.”
The Two Earliest Extant Greek Manuscripts Do Not have the Comma
The two most ancient Greek manuscripts which are extant are Codex Sinaiticus, which has more edits than any other manuscript in biblical history (14800 edits), and Codex Vaticanus, which is at the Vatican Library. Neither of these two manuscripts contain the Comma.
Conclusion
Finally, there is little debate among scholars that the Comma in 1 John 5:7-8 was, using Sir Isaac Newton’s words, a pious fraud. Only deluded King James Onlyists are still arguing for its retention on the false claim that the King James is an inspired translation, thereby placing it on a false pedestal as the original writings. But the Comma had proven beyond doubt that some overzealous scribes have changed the original writings to suit their misunderstanding of the three things written by Apostle John in the text, the spirit and the water and the blood, as representing the Trinity. The testimony of God Himself which came from heaven about the Son (Matt. 3:16; 17:5) is what they changed to testimony in heaven. The apostle did not write about any testimony in heaven.
