THEOS prōtos

The “Johannie Comma” refers to the variant rendering of 1 John 5:7-8. History and textual evidence helps us see where this variant came from and whether or not it is the authority of God.

NASB: “For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.“

7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες

8 τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν

KJV: “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.“

7ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες εν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν

8καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἕν τῇ γῇ, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἐν εἰσὶν

There is zero, nada, nothing, no support for that additional language in 1 John 5:7-8 in anything until the 4th century. That is a problem.

Clement of Alexandria in the 3rd century quoted from 1 John 5 and did not even mention that additional language. Either he wasn’t aware of it or it just didn’t exist at that time. But, given that he was in Alexandria who possessed some of the oldest more reliable manuscripts, the evidence in his case supports those additions as non-existent in his day.

Cyprian of Carthage discusses the concept of the idea of some kind of trinity without being specific but even in his discussion of this idea, he never quotes 1 John 5 the way it is written in FAR LATER manuscripts. Sharing an idea that is true does not validate a specific writing that supports the same idea as the writing itself being authentic from an original author. He cannot be used to support the authenticity of the additions in 1 John 5.

Tertullian, who was in fact a Trinitarian and supported the concept and ideas of the Trinity in Scripture, does not quote 1 John 5. Which is odd if that verse was original and explicitly support his point. This also supports the notion that it was not in the original texts. And this is in the 3rd century, over 200 years after Jesus, and around 150 years after the apostolic writings. To make matters worse for proponents of the authenticity of the later version of 1 John 5, Tertullian is known as “the father of Latin Christianity” and it is from the later Latin tradition the 1 John 5 words come from. Why didn’t he know about it?

Sabellius, who was a modalist and stout anti-trinitarian would have done one of 2 things, either argue against that explicit verse or use it in some way to justify his own belief, if in fact, that rendering of the verse existed in his day. But, he doesn’t. He makes no mention of it whatsoever, just like Tertullian, it is unknown to them in the 3rd century.

Origen, like Tertullian, never quotes it. He writes about similar ideas that the verse talks about, much like Tertullian. In one of his commentaries to Psalms, he comments on the father, son, and holy spirit and how they are one, but that wasn’t an idea only found in 1 John 5; that is something Jesus said in the Gospel of John. That is a biblical concept already so needing 1 John 5 to have that idea is unnecessary. Regardless, he never quotes it.

The oldest Christian church is the Ethiopian church. In their old language, Ge’ez, they have 3rd century manuscripts copied from much earlier manuscripts, maybe even not to far from the originals or 1st generation copies, given their closeness to the original church. None of the Ge’ez manuscripts renders 1 John 5 to include the trinitarian language; none.

Jerome, a hero of the Catholic Church, translated a majority of the early Greek manuscripts into Latin and fixing issues with the Vetus Latina copies, leading to the creation of the Latin Vulgate bible. Though the trinitarian language is found in some Vetus Latina manuscripts, its hard to tell when those were included. Jerome, in his translations, did not translate 1 John 5 with the trinitarian language, nor did anyone else who helped complete the Latin Vulgate bible translation.

The trinitarian variant language is also completely absent in the earliest Greek Codex Vaticanus and all Coptic Manuscripts. The Copic church is the next oldest church in history. If that language was of the earliest of traditions and authenticated like all the rest of the writings, it should have been in their copies, but, its not.

Early manuscripts of the Peshitta, which is made up of Syriac manuscripts, does not include that language either. Only in far later Syriac manuscripts do we begin to see that language included.

Athanasius of Alexandria, a diehard and stout Trinitarian would have most definitely used this verse to authoritatively justify his arguments for the Trinity. But, oddly, he never once quotes it. Again, either because it didn’t exist, he didn’t know about it, or he knew it wasn’t authentic.

Then, suddenly, in the mid 4th century, Priscillian of Ávila writes Liber Apologeticus where it is quoted and the trinitarian language is there. But, there are issues with this as well. The oldest copy we have of the Liber Apologeticus is from the 6th century. Though we know when Priscillian was alive and when he was writing, we only have copied manuscripts of his work, we don’t have his original writings. This too could have been added to his writings from a later copiest. It’s odd that he, suddenly, is aware of this rendering of 1 John 5 when no one else in all of Christian history before him had a clue.

There is a theory in modern academia is that he is the actual originator and source of this language textual variant. It could have just been a side comment he made that got included into the text in later copies. Then, from him, the copiests of the later Vetus Latina manuscripts (5th century), Codex Speculum (5th century), and Codex Frisingensis (7th century) all include his rendering of 1 John 5, because the earliest renderings of 1 John 5 or all in Latin, but not all Latin textual traditions agree with this rendering either.

The Latin Pope, Leo the Great never quoted it in the 5th century. It is absent in the 6th century latin Codex Fuldensis and Codex Amiatinus. Cassiodorus, a Latin theologian in the 6th century doesn’t quote it either.

So, we can see, historically, that this variant rendering of 1 John 5 was not in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries, then suddenly in the 4th century, Priscillian of Ávila uses the language, and then from then on, it is found in some of the other Latin manuscripts, but not all. As time went on, the manuscripts with the variant language are copied and multiplied, thus increasing the frequency this variant is copied.

Then we get to Erasmus in the 16th century. He, himself, notated that he felt the variant of 1 John 5 was “spurious.” And he chose not to include it in his first edition of his translated manuscripts, which later came to be known as Textus Receptus. But, it was the Catholic Church that compelled him to include that variant rendering in his later editions of the Textus Receptus.

Then it was the later editions of the Textus Receptus that was the basis for the 16th century Complutensian Polyglot bible, Geneva Bible, and the King James Bible. Interestingly, the Luther Bible, translated in the 16th century in the German language, did not include that variant reading of 1 John 5.

Since the 16th century, thousands of more manuscripts have been discovered allowing for Textual Criticism to help better determine the originality of the source materials. Due to this and the more apparent doubt as to the original authenticity of the variant rendering of 1 John 5, most Bibles now put it in brackets with a footnote or only notate the language in the footnotes. But, documents that adhear to and depend primarily on the Textus Receptus of the 16th century, will include the variant language.

Conclusion

In light of all the historical and textual evidence it is fairly safe to say that the later variant rendering of 1 John 5:7-8 was not in the original writing from John. Though the concept and idea is true, the textual authenticity coming from the original author cannot be established or supported in any honest definitive manner. It is more likely it was a side note commentary that was accidently included into the text itself, but then justified by the Church to bolster their defense against heresies and the doctrine of the Trinity.

This does not effect the reliability of Holy Scripture. As stated above, we have ample evidence to know what was and was NOT in the original writings AND even with the absence or addition of this controversial rendering, it still has no effect on the doctrine of the Trinity itself in light of all the other authentic portions of scripture regarding the doctrine and concept of the Trinity.

If anything, it shows 3 things: 1) The error of the Church to force concepts and ideas into Holy Scripture; 2) the questionable nature of some of the elements of the Textus Receptus; and 3) that textual criticism helps sharpen the authenticity and original source renderings of scripture.

We can be more confident than ever in what the original writings of Holy Scripture taught and said as we continue to discover more manuscripts and artifacts that support truth and expose that which is less than true.