Writings About and in Support of the Johannine Comma, 1 John 5:7

Available online

• “A Clear Bible Proof Text for the Doctrine of the Trinity,” by Jeffrey Khoo (in 50 Years Building His Kingdom, Life Bible-Presbyterian Church, pp. 87-88)
• A Critical Dissertation Upon the Seventh Verse of the Fifth Chapter of St. John's First Epistle, by David Martin
• A Defense of 1 John 5:7, by David Cloud
• A Defense of the Johannine Comma: Setting the Record Straight on I John 5:7-8
• A Preliminary Examination of the Antiquity and Authenticity of the Johannine Comma, by Jeffrey Khoo
• A Vindication of 1 John v. 7 from the Objections of M. Griesbach, by Thomas Burgess
• And These Three Are One: A Case for the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7-8, by Jesse M. Boyd
• An Internal Argument for the Comma Johanneum, by Jeff Riddle
• Debate Over 1 John 5:7, part 1 (John Calvin)
• Debate Over 1 John 5:7, part 2 (John Gill)
• Debate Over 1 John 5:7, part 3 (Matthew Henry)
• Dogmatische Theologie Volume 4, by Johann Baptist Heinrich (in German)
• In An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, or Received Text of the New Testament, by Frederick Nolan, pp. 253ff, et al.
• Letters to Edward Gibbon, Esq., Author of the History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Third Edition), by George Travis
• Response to Daniel Wallace Regarding 1 John 5:7, by Martin A. Shue
• The Johannine Comma
• The Johannine Comma of 1 John 5:7-8: Added or Removed? by “The Berean Patriot”
• Why 1 John 5:7-8 is in the Bible, Trinitarian Bible Society
• 1 John 5:7 “And These Three Are One”, by Will Kinney
• 1 John 5:7 defended “The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek,” by Robert Louis Dabney
• I John 5:7 Grammar argument, by Stephen Mills Reynolds

Available in print

• A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8: a Tracing of the Longevity of the Comma Johanneum, with evaluations of arguments against its authenticity, by Michael Maynard (Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995)
• Commentary on the Johannine Epistles, by Thomas M. Strouse, 2023
• In Defense of 1 John 5:7, by Phil Stringer
• In Defense of the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7, by C. H. Pappas (Bloomington, IN: WestBow Press, 2016)
• The Historical Defense of 1 John 5: 7-8: The Unjustly Exscinded Text of the Three Divine Witnesses, by Michael Maynard (Dahlonega, GA: Old Paths Publications, Inc., 2019)

Fulgentius of Ruspe and Comma Johanneum

Fulgentius of Ruspe (circa AD 465 – 530) was a bishop in the 6th century in the city of Ruspe, in the Roman province of North Africa, in what is modern day Tunisia. His doctrinal writings include the polemic against the Arian doctrines of the Vandal rulers of Africa.

Responsio contra Arianos, or Against the Arians, replies to ten questions proposed by the Arian ruler King Thrasamund. Part of his response, below, seems to (1) say that John the apostle wrote, “There are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one,” and (2) that Cyprian believed that was authoritative Scripture.

In the Father, therefore, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, we acknowledge unity of substance, but dare not confound the persons.

For St. John the apostle, testifieth saying, “There are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one.” Which also the blessed martyr Cyprian, in his epistle de unitate Ecclesiae (Unity of the Church), confesseth, saying, Who so breaketh the peace of Christ, and concord, acteth against Christ: whoso gathereth elsewhere beside the Church, scattereth. And that he might shew, that the Church of the one God is one, he inserted these testimonies, immediately from the scriptures; The Lord said, “I and the Father are one.” And again, “of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it is written, ‘And these three are one.’ (1 John 5:7).”

In the book on the Lord’s Prayer as well, to show that the Trinity is of one divinity and does not have any separateness among itself, he mentioned Daniel and the three boys who would say a prayer every three hours. Thus, by the course of three hours and the service of one prayer, he evidently showed that the Trinity is one God. We, therefore, do not worship one God, [consisting] of three parts; but retaining without beginning, of the perfect and eternal Father, not unequal in power, and equal in nature; and we also confess, that the Holy Spirit is no other than God, neither different from the Father, nor the Son, nor confounded in the Son, nor in the Father. (Fulgentius, Against the Arians; Translated by Thomas Hartwell Horne,1825; Horne, “IV. Sect. V. On the First General Epistle of John” in Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, 1825, Volume 4, page 448.

In Latin:

In Patre ergo et Filio et Spiritu sancto unitatem substantiae accipimus, personas confundere non audemus.

Beatus enim Ioannes apostolus testatur, dicens: Tressunt qui testimonium perhibent in coelo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus; et tres unum sunt (I Ioan. V, 7) . Quod etiam beatissimus martyr Cyprianus, in epistola de Unitate Ecclesiae confitetur, dicens: Qui pacem Christi et concordiam rumpit, adversus Christum facit; qui alibi praeter Ecclesiam colligit, Christi Ecclesiam spargit. Atque ut unam Ecclesiam unius Dei esse monstraret, haec confestim testimonia de Scripturis inseruit. Dicit Dominus: Ego et Pater unum sumus. Et iterum: De Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est: Ettres unum sunt. 

Nam et in libro de Oratione dominica, ut ostenderet Trinitatem unius deitatis,esse nec inter se aliquam diversitatem habere, Danielem et tres pueros, ternarum horarum circulis revolutis, orationem fundere solitos memoravit. Ubi et in trium horarum curriculo, et inunius orationis officio, unum Deum esse Trinitatem evidenter ostendit. (0224C) Non ergo extribus partibus unum colimus Deum, sed apostolicae fidei regulam retinentes, perfectum et consempiternum Filium, de perfecto et sempiterno Patre, sine initio genitum, et potestate non imparem, et natura fatemur aequalem. Sanctum quoque Spiritum non aliud fatemur esse quam Deum, nec a Filio nec a Patre diversum, nec in Filio nec in Patre confusum. (Fulgentius, Responsio contra Arianos; Migne Latina, PL 65.224)

De Trinitate ad Felicem, or, Of the Trinity to Felix, also mentions the three heavenly witnesses.

See, in short you have it that the Father is one, the Son another, and the Holy Spirit another, in Person, each is other, but in nature they are not other. In this regard He says: “The Father and I, we are one.” He teaches us that “one” refers to Their nature, and ”we are” to Their persons. In like manner it is said: “There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit; and these three are one.” Let Sabellius hear “we are” [plural], let him hear “three", and let him believe that there are three Persons.

Let him not blaspheme in his sacrilegious heart by saying that the Father is the same in Himself as the Son is the same in Himself and as the Holy Spirit is the same in Himself, as if in some way He could beget Himself, or in some way proceed from Himself. Even in created natures it is never able to be found that something is able to beget itself. Let also Arius hear one; and let him not say that the Son is of a different nature, if one cannot be said of that, the nature of which is different.” (Fulgentius, On the Trinity, chapter 4; Translated by William A. Jurgens, 1970, vol 3, p. 291-292)

In Latin:

En habes in brevi alium esse Patrem, alium Filium, alium Spiritum sanctum: alium etalium in persona, non aliud et aliud in natura; et idcirco Ego, inquit, et Pater unum sumus (Ioan. X, 30). Unum, ad naturam referre nos docet, Sumus, ad personas. Similiter et illud: Tres sunt, inquit, qui testimonium dicunt in coelo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus, et hitres unum sunt (I Ioan. V, 7). Audiat Sabellius sumus, audiat tres, et credat esse tres personas, et non sacrilego corde blasphemet, dicendo ipsum sibi esse Patrem, ipsum sibi Filium, ipsum sibi Spiritum sanctum: tanquam modo quodam seipsum gignat, aut modo quodam a seipso ipse procedat; cum hoc etiam in naturis creatis minime invenire possit, ut aliquid seipsum gignere valeat. Audiat scilicet et Arius, Unum, et non differentis Filium dicat essenaturae, cum natura diversa unum dici nequeat. (Fulgentius, De Trinitate, chap iv; Migne Latina, PL 65.500)

Other notes about Fulgentius of Ruspe.

• Fulgentius wrote frequently against Arianism and Pelagianism.
• Eight of the doctrinal treatises ascribed to him are solidly considered to be authentic (i.e., ascribed correctly).
• Pseudo-Fulgentius, by an anonymous Nicene author, was incorrectly attributed to Fulgentius of Ruspe in the17th century.
• De fide ad Petrum was formerly attributed to Augustine, but now understood to be by Fulgentius.

The important point to take away from Fulgentius of Ruspe is not whether he was “doctrinally sound all around,” but that he, in the 6th century, knew of and is witness to Scripture (manuscripts) that contained what we call the Johannine Comma, Comma Johanneum, or the Three Heavenly Witnesses.

Stephen M. Reynolds, the Comma, and Credentialism

Back in 2017, I posted a grammatical argument in favour of the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) made by Stephen Edward Mills Reynolds (1909-2007). Recently I prepared some biographical information on Reynolds for Find-A-Grave. At about the same time, I noticed a diatribe on the Baptist Board asserting that only long dead scholars (1700s-1800s) supported the Johannine Comma with a grammatical argument and that no “real” modern scholars do so. Enter Stephen M. Reynolds. I do not personally buy credentialism; neither am I selling it. However, those who scold others about “real scholars” usually do (buy and sell it). The credentials of Reynolds are first rate, as far as theological credentials go, and his expertise was in biblical languages. He taught in credible institutions, wrote for peer-reviewed journals, and was consulted for his expertise. Y’all don’t have to buy the argument made by Reynolds, but once in awhile y’all stick your heads up out of your holes and realize that all scholars are not cast in the same mold, even if all of your favorites are. (By the way, just ’cause someone is dead does not mean he is wrong, or because someone is contemporary does not mean he is right. And vice versa.)

The way to get around recognizing folks such as Edward F. Hills and Stephen M. Reynolds as “real scholars” is to have them “drummed out of the corps.” Such men having “real” credentials – often better than their detractors – teach in “real” institutions of learning, and write “real” articles for “real” peer-reviewed journals. However, their refusals to speak the standard scholarly shibboleths mean that they become anathema to the majority who feel threatened by their dissent!

Education:

• Bachelor of Arts, Miami University, 1931
• Bachelor in Theology, Princeton Theological Seminary, 1933
• Master of Arts, Princeton University, 1938
• PhD in Semitic Languages, Princeton University, 1939
• Bachelor of Library Science, Columbia University, 1951

Employment includes:

• Lincoln University, Chester County, Pennsylvania
• Crozer Theological Seminary, Upland, Pennsylvania
• Faith Theological Seminary, Elkins Park, Pennsylvania
• Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Affiliations/Memberships include:

• Evangelical Theological Society
• Ordained Presbyterian minister (by PCUSA)
• Philadelphia Presbytery of the Bible Presbyterian Church
• Affiliated with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (according to NIV committee info)
• Possibly affiliated with the American Presbyterian Church at one time

Works include:

• The “Polyglot” Arabic text of Zachariah: a Comparative and Critical Study. PhD. Dissertation, Princeton University, 1939
• “Al-'Alam’s Version of Zechariah,” The Muslim World, Volume 33, Issue 4. (October 1943): pages 273-275
• “Calvin’s View of the Athanasian and Nicene Creeds,” Westminster Theological Journal, Volume 23, Issue 1. (1960): pages 33–37
• “Supreme Importance of the Doctrine of Election and the Eternal Security of the Elect as taught in the Gospel of John,” Westminster Theological Journal, Volume 28, Issue 1. (1965): 38-41.
• “Πυγμῇ (Mark 7:3) as ‘Cupped Hand’,” Journal of Biblical Literature, Volume 85, Issue 1. (1966): pages 87-88
• “The Zero Tense in Greek, a Critical Note,” Westminster Theological Journal, Volume 32, Issue 1. (1969): pages 68-72
• “A Note on Dr. Hengel’s Interpretation of πυγμῇ in Mark 7 3,” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der Älteren Kirche, Berlin, Volume 62, Issue 3. (1971): page 295
• “The Word ‘Again’ in Creeds and Bible,” Westminster Theological Journal, Volume 35, Issue 1. (1972): 28-35
• Alcohol and the Bible, Little Rock, AR: Challenge Press, 1983
• The Holy Bible, a Purified Translation, the Gospel According to John, Glenside, PA: L. L. Reynolds Foundation, 1999
• The Holy Bible: A Purified Translation (The New Testament), Glenside, PA: L. L. Reynolds Foundation, 2000
• The Biblical Approach to Alcohol, Glenside, PA: L. L. Reynolds Foundation, 2003 (original 1989, Princeton University Press)
• Faithful Biblical Interpretations, Glenside, PA: L. L. Reynolds Foundation, 2003 (original 1994)

Additional:

• Served on the New International Version Committee on Bible Translation.
• Primary translator of The Holy Bible: a Purified Translation.

The above list is compiled from my research, and does not claim to be exhaustive. As far as I know, all the information about Stephen M. Reynolds is correct, even if not complete.

Be careful

When we are not being careful, we most conservative brothers and sisters allow ourselves to be carried away by the popular teachings of conservative brethren who are carried away by the popular teachings of “The Academy.”[i]

Two examples.

I have spoken and written of the inspiration of 2 Timothy 3:16 as referring directly to the Old Testament and only by extension to the New Testament.[ii] 2 Timothy 3:16 does not directly refer to the New Testament? Where did I get that? If we trace it back, it probably finds its origin in repeating conservatives who have accepted the liberal view of dating the New Testament writings as late rather than early. That is, they believe that none of the New Testament scriptures existed at the time when Paul wrote those words to Timothy. Therefore, they say, Paul could have only meant the Old Testament when he wrote of inspiration.

However, taking the Bible as our guide, we find first that Jesus himself authenticated beforehand the New Testament writings as Scripture. John 16:13 records, “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.” Further, Christians accepted the writings of the apostles as scripture even before the canon was closed. For example, Paul refers to Luke’s Gospel as scripture (1 Timothy 5:18; cf. Matthew 10:10), and Peter refers to all of Paul’s epistles as scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16), placing them on equal footing with the Old Testament.[iii]

In another place, I wrote concerning 1 John 5:7-8:

Cyprian of Carthage wrote, possibly invoking the comma…Cyprian certainly references this part of John’s first epistle, but it is not a verbatim quotation of it – thereby leaving the use of it inconclusive and open to argument.

Why be equivocal? Cyprian (circa AD 250) wrote, “of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written, ‘And these three are one’” (Treatise 1, On the Unity of the Church, Chapter 6). Where is it written? In the Bible, only in 1 John 5:7. One might argue, as does Dan Wallace, that he reads such into the text. However, Cyprian wrote – “it is written” – “of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” – not that what is written means such and such.[iv]

We need to learn to turn our backs on the assumptions of “The Academy” and learn to exercise caution following conservative scholars who are following the assumptions of “The Academy.” May the Lord help us to do so.

---

[i] The society or gaggle of distinguished scholars who aim to promote and maintain standards in their particular fields, or a body of established opinion widely accepted as authoritative in their particular fields (e.g., religion, textual criticism, etc.).

[ii] I believe the New Testament is inspired but there made the “safe” argument by extrapolation.
[iii] Peter mentions this in the natural flow of his larger thought, without needing to stop and make an argument to prove Pauls writings are scripture. This indicates his audience has an understanding that the apostolic writings are authoritative. Peter also equates the inspiration of the apostles with the prophets of the Old Testament in 2 Peter 3:2. See also John 14:26, John 15:26-27, John 16:13, 1 Corinthians 14:37, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, 1 John 4:6, Jude v. 17, and Revelation 1:1-3.
[iv] Wallace says, “and these three are one” is “the wording of which occurs in the Greek text.” However, what he refers to in his Greek text is οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν (these three agree in one), rather than ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν (these three are one). Wallace also writes that the Comma “at first shows up in Latin, starting with Priscillian in c. 380.” However, Cyprian (writing in Latin) was familiar with it written in some kind of text by AD 250, some 130 years earlier. He wrote, Et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est: Et hi tres unum sunt.

“Critical” Admissions

Admission of uncertainty. An explicitly equivocal admission by one considered the premier evangelical  textual critic of our day, considering the uncertainty they have in getting a Bible “pretty close.” Pretty close may be fine in horseshoes and washers, but the Bible?

“So if we do not have absolute certainty about the wording of the original, what do we have? We have overwhelming probability that the wording in our printed Bibles is pretty close.” 

“Challenges in New Testament Textual Criticism for the Twenty-First Century,” Daniel B. Wallace, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Volume 52, No. 1, March 2009 (Scottsdale, Arizona: Evangelical Theological Society, 2009), p. 86.

Comma Admission. An amazing admission by a critical text proponent, that for all the lightless heat produced by them over the “Johannine Comma” in 1 John 5:7, their own reconstructed texts are littered with readings which they do not know whether they belong there.

“And yet, the textual tradition of the Greek New Testament itself – including what is printed as the Ausgangstext – is interwoven with readings which may or may not have been penned by their original authors. The current reconstructed texts are thus a concession imposed by the limits of our knowledge. As such, the difference between the Comma Johanneum and those otherwise (unknown) spurious readings within our reconstructed texts appears to be one of degree rather than kind. The Comma Johanneum may not be the only relic within the textual tradition.” 

“The Comma Johanneum: A Relic in the Textual Tradition,” Juan Hernández Jr., Early Christianity, Volume 11, 2020, (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2020), p. 68

Priscillian of Avila and the Johannine Comma

The Johannine Comma[i] is a clause found in 1 John 5:7-8 in many older Bibles but omitted from many newer ones. Detractors claim it is a late addition. Yet circa AD 250 in Treatise 1, On the Unity of the Church, Cyprian of Carthage seems to quote it, attaching the formula “it is written.”

The Johannine Comma is also attested in Priscillian’s Liber Apologeticus, written circa 380 in Latin:

sicut Iohannes ait: Tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in terra  aqua caro et sanguis et haec tria in unum sunt, et tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in coelo pater verbum et spiritus et haec tria unum sunt in Christo Iesu.[ii]

One English translation is:

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.”[iii]

Liber Apologeticus is usually ascribed to Priscillian of Avila, though sometimes to an unknown protégé of his. Some writers try to affix the origin of the Johannine Comma to Priscillian. However, it is clear that Priscillian attributes it to the apostle John. One may choose to reject the witness of Priscillian, but one should not deny that he wrote “sicut Iohannes ait,” or “As John says.”

Who was Priscillian? Little is known of his life.  The primary sources are Catholic, who opposed his faith and practice. Though considered a heretic by Catholics, historian Edmund Hamer Broadbent’s research – especially the writings of Priscillian discovered in 1885 – led him to conclude that Priscillian was an “evangelical reformer” rather than a “Manichaean heretic.”[iv]

The reading of these, Priscillian’s own writings, shows that the account handed down of him was wholly untrue, that he was a man of saintly character, sound in doctrine, and an energetic reformer, and that those associated with him were companies of men and women who were true and devoted followers of Christ. Not content with murdering these people, exiling them, confiscating their goods, the Church authorities have persistently calumniated their memory.[v]

Compared to our common version (King James), a translation from Priscillian’s Latin exhibits a few differences.

King James translation: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Priscillian translation: 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.

• Priscillian’s version reverses the order, placing the record in earth first, and the record in heaven afterward.
• Priscillian’s version of the testimony on earth has flesh instead of Spirit.
• Priscillian’s version adds “in Christ Jesus” after the end of the testimony in heaven.

From Priscillian’s writing, we may conclude that he was a Trinitarian who held the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We may further understand that he possessed in writing (or had read) the first epistle of John, and that source with which he was familiar contained the much-disputed “Johannine Comma.” Perhaps he had a Latin translation, or translated it himself from the Greek, or quoted it as he remembered it. Nevertheless, he had some knowledge of the text, and believed it was written by John.

---

[i] Also called “The Comma Johanneum,” “The Heavenly Witnesses,” and “The Trinitarian Formula.”
[ii] Priscilliani, Tractate I, Liber Apologeticus (Book of Apology), Priscilliani Quae Supersunt. Maximam Partem Nuper Detexit Adiectisque Commentariis Criticis et Indicibus Primus Edidit Georgius Schepss. Priscillian (Bishop of Avila, ca. 350-385); Vindobonae: F. Tempsky, 1889, p. 6.
[iii] In his Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures, Gary H. Everett appears to cite this translation as F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1963, 210-211).
[iv] Another suggested reference on Priscillian is “Priscillian of Avila: Heretic or Early Reformer?”, Brian H . Wagner, Chafer Theological Seminary Journal 12, Fall 2006, pp. 87-97. “Yet for those who desire to trace a nonmagisterial, nonsacramental, free church testimony down through the ages since Pentecost, it appears the Priscillianists provided in themselves, or at least under the cover of their influence, such a testimony for at least two hundred years in Spain and southern France.” Wagner, p. 95.
[v] The Pilgrim Church, Edmund Hamer Broadbent, p. 38

I John 5:7 Grammar argument

“The arguments in favor of I John 5:7’s claim to genuineness include an argument from Greek grammar. The complete text of verses 7 and 8 with the disputed words in brackets is:

7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος καὶ τὸ ῞Αγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. 8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ,] τὸ Πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα· καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.

“The internal evidence based on the grammar is that if the words in brackets are omitted the words, Πνεῦμα, ὕδωρ and αἷμα, three neuters, are made to agree with the masculine article οἱ. If, however, the words in brackets are allowed to remain, the masculine article in οἱ τρεῖς agrees with the two masculines and one neuter, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ῞Αγιον Πνεῦμα, and, according to the rule of syntax, the masculines among the group control the neuter connected with them. Then the occurrence of the masculines in verse 8 agreeing with the neuters Πνεῦμα, ὕδωρ and αἷμα may be accounted for by the power of attraction, well known in Greek syntax.”

This grammatical argument for the Johannine Comma was made by Stephen Mills Reynolds, a member of the New International Version translation committee and the primary translator of The Holy Bible: a Purified Translation. This article may be found in it as “I John 5:7, A Part of Scripture,” p. 568.

The Johannine Comma

Probably more controversial than the last twelve verses of Mark 16 is the so-called Johannine Comma. The Johannine Comma or Comma Johanneum is a technical term used by theologians to name a clause found in 1 John 5:7-8. It is also referred to as “The Heavenly Witnesses” and “The Trinitarian Formula.” Johannine or Johanneum is an adjective meaning “of or relating to John the apostle or to his writings in the New Testament.” Comma is not used as the mark of punctuation, but rather to mean a part of a sentence or short clause (Latin, comma, commae; from Greek kómma). It is a clause much debated in Christian circles – especially between supporters of older Bible translations such as the King James Version, Reina-Valera 1960, etc., which include it, and modern translations like the New International Version, Christian Standard Bible, etc. which expunge it.

Comparisons

King James Version, 1 John 5:
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.

New International Version, 1 John 5:
7 For there are three that testify: |_| 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

Reina-Valera 1960, 1 Juan 5:7 Porque tres son los que dan testimonio | en el cielo: el Padre, el Verbo y el Espíritu Santo; y estos tres son uno. 8 Y tres son los que dan testimonio en la tierra: | el Espíritu, el agua y la sangre; y estos tres concuerdan.

Nueva Traducción Viviente, 1 Juan 5:7 Por lo tanto, son tres los testigos |_| 8 —el Espíritu, el agua y la sangre— y los tres están de acuerdo.

Cyprian quotes it?

Circa AD 250 in Treatise 1, On the Unity of the Church Cyprian of Carthage wrote, possibly invoking the comma, “He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathers 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.” Cyprian also wrote, “If of the Holy Spirit; since the three are one, how can the Holy Spirit be at peace with him who is the enemy either of the Son or of the Father?” in his Epistle 72 To Jubaianus, Concerning the Baptism of Heretics (circa 256).[i] Cyprian certainly references this part of John’s first epistle, but it is not a verbatim quotation of it – thereby leaving the use of it inconclusive and open to argument.

The grammatical argument

In The Johannine Comma: First John 5:6-8 Floyd Jones makes this case regarding the grammar: “If I John 5:6-8 is removed from the Greek text, the two resulting loose ends will not join together grammatically.  The Greek language has ‘gender’ in its noun endings (as do many other languages). Neuter nouns normally require neuter articles (the word ‘the’ as in ‘the blood’ is the article).  But the article in verse 8 of the shortened reading as found in the Greek that is the foundation of the new versions (verse 7 of the King James Greek text) is masculine.  Thus the new translations read ‘the Spirit (neuter), the water (neuter), and the blood (neuter): and these three (masculine!! - from the Greek article hoi) are in one.’ Consequently three neuter subjects are being treated as masculine (see below where the omitted portion is italicized).  If the ‘Comma’ is rejected it is impossible to adequately explain this irregularity.  In addition, without the ‘Comma’ verse 7 has a masculine antecedent; three neuter subjects (nouns in vs.8) do not take a masculine antecedent.  Viewing the complete passage it becomes apparent how this rule of grammar is violated when the words are omitted.”

Concluding thoughts

I am a proponent of the “Comma,” but have nevertheless found some of “our” arguments less than weighty – at least as they are presented. It is certainly possible that in AD 250 Cyprian referred to these words by John, but it is also plausible that he was interpreting it – since it is not a direct quote. The grammar argument seems sensible, but then again I’m not sure that God is required to follows our interpretation of certain rules of grammar![ii]

The con side points out that the comma was not in the earliest Greek manuscripts that are available and does not appear until the 4^th century in Latin manuscripts.[iii] It also is not in the majority of Greek manuscripts.[iv] Some historians say that the comma was not used in early Trinitarian controversies, and this militates against it. Yet others claim that in the earliest controversies “these three are one” would have been accepted by both sides and would not have been a particularly pungent point. The text does seem Johannine in style. The late argument, in my opinion, is not as weighty as the minority argument.

Many of the debaters in this debate are less than kind to one another (Cf. Ephesians 4:32). The “anti-comma” side dismisses their opponents as “not scholars” and even ignoramuses, while the “pro-comma” side dismisses theirs as weak on the Trinity or liberal posers.

Following are linked articles that address the topic.

Links, Pro

• A Defense of the Johannine Comma: Setting the Record Straight on I John 5:7-8
• An Internal Argument for the Comma Johanneum
• Does a Clear, Biblical Proof Text Exist for the Doctrine of the Trinity?
• New Book In Defense Of 1 John 5:7-8
• Response to Daniel Wallace Regarding 1 John 5:7
• Why 1 John 5.7-8 is in the Bible
• Why 1 John 5:7 was always in the Bible

Links, Con

• About the Comma Johanneum
• John Bugenhagen and the Comma Johanneum
• The Comma Johanneum: A Critical Evaluation of the Text of 1 John 5.7-8
• The Comma Johanneum Again
• The Comma Johanneum and Cyprian
• The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8
• What is the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8)?

Links, Historical (not necessarily neutral)

• The Comma Johanneum in an Overlooked Manuscript
• The Johannine Comma, Greek Manuscript Evidence

---

[i] Another translation is “since the Three are One, how can the Holy Ghost be at peace with him, who is an enemy either of the Son or the Father?” (The Epistles of S. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage and Martyr, Translated by Members of the English Church, Oxford: James Parker and Co., 1868, p. 250)

[ii] And others will argue the grammar defense is incorrect. I thought I had found a clearly stated pro-argument only on the grammar of 1 John 5:7-8, but when completing this post could not find it.

[iii] They also can be selective and inconsistent in their preference of text related to age.

[iv] Of course, 1 John and 1 John 5 are not in every manuscript, either. Nevertheless this is one of the stronger points against the pro side, since we usually argue in favor of the majority reading.