The Johannine Comma Problem
The debate over a section of scripture in 1 John 5 known as the Johannine Comma is one of those issues that can make your head hurt. The Johannine Comma (also known as the Comma Johanneum or the Heavenly Witnesses) is a portion of 1 John 5:6-8.
Honestly, this issue is a challenge to me. What’s often discouraging about it is that so many who are purported to be Biblical Scholars take a view on it that I find hard to accept. The questions I often ask myself are then “Should I accept their scholarship on the issue?” and “Can scholars be wrong?” The answer to the first being, “I’m not required to” and the answer to the second being, “They absolutely can be!”
As I often try to do with things, I hope to simplify (perhaps oversimplify) the issue for my own understanding and pare it down to the “nuts and bolts” of the argument. As always, remember, I’m no expert. I’m just a pastor trying to understand things, so I welcome your constructive feedback.
The basic argument goes like this: “Portions of 1 John 5:6-8 don’t belong in the modern English translations because parts of that section don’t exist in the earliest manuscripts.”
I mostly use the King James version of the Bible, but I’m not a Ruckmanite, as that sect is rather silly. In fact, many of the people I know that hold to the KJV are not Ruckmanites. If you don’t know what a Ruckmanite is, you’re not missing anything. Unless of course you get entertainment at the expense of the feeble-minded, which I don’t typically recommend. The KJV contains the Comma while modern English translations often do not because it is not found in the oldest manuscripts. So the issue is, what are the KJV people supposed to do about this lack of evidence? And, how consequential is this?
Logically, in other issues we tend to align with the side that has the most compelling evidence. So which side has the most compelling evidence regarding the Comma? If one side has more compelling evidence, intellectual honesty demands that we concede to them, otherwise our view is not one of objective fact but of belief only. But there is small burr in the saddle with that. And that is, from an epistemological standpoint (how we know what we know), quantity of evidence in historical matters does not always justify dogma on the matter since we were not around then. It is possible that there may have been evidences in history that do not exist now. That is really the only caveat in this debate. The comma lacks heavy manuscript evidence. But it has been argued that the evidence for its inclusion in the text used to exist but is lost to time. Is that blind belief? Well, in short, yes.
If I’m honest, the evidence against the inclusion of the Comma is very compelling. It is just that the arguments do not make for a “slam dunk”, “open-and-shut” case against the Comma. It is a rocky issue. There may be elements that do suggest excluding the comma is not entirely warranted.
Remember, most Greek manuscripts in existence do not have the Comma. Only eleven later Greek manuscripts contain it. Six of those eleven have it in the margin, added even later still. The fact that it shows up in the margin at all is problematic for comma supporters. That means scribes at some point in the past considered it only a copyist note, not inspired scripture. There is some evidence that later manuscripts had a few scribal notes that eventually slipped into the text. Now, while the notion that earlier-manuscript-equals-better-manuscript may be somewhat superlative, what’s the alternative viewpoint? Well, to suggest that a later manuscript is better puts your acceptance of that manuscript more in the category of belief than a chain of evidence. And the comma unfortunately lacks the chain of evidence.
One thing I learned is that the earliest Greek manuscript of 1 John 5 is called Vaticanus, (c. 300 - 325 AD). We know that the Apostle John wrote in the latter half of the first century. That means there is over a two-hundred year gap between the giving of 1 John 5 and its earliest surviving copy. If we presume that during that time the text was copied numerous times (it certainly was), and that the comma was original, is more than two-hundred years enough time for the Comma to be removed or corrupted for one reason or another? The answer to that is yes! But the fact that the disappearance of the comma could have happened in that time, is not proof that it did happen in that time. The more honest conclusion is that it just wasn’t there to begin with.
The next question to answer after this is, if the comma could have been original, and then tampered with within the first two-hundred years after writing, where is that evidence that it was there to begin with?
There are more than five thousand Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. The manuscripts which include 1 John 5 are limited to about four-hundred-eighty manuscripts. The majority of these do not have the Comma. Also, of those 480 manuscripts of 1 John 5, only 12 of those manuscripts are from before the 10th century! So, you can see why most of the Greek manuscripts that include the Comma would be considered "late" and “few” by modern standards. Ten centuries is more than enough time for a scribal note to get slipped in the text by accident. That is a more evidence-based conclusion than that was originally included and we just don’t have early record of it’s inclusion. This is a stressful reality for those who cling to the KJV.
Yes, it is possible for the comma to have been original, included in early manuscripts, copied into later manuscripts with the earlier ones becoming lost to time, leaving us only with later ones that include it. That could make it appear as if the Comma just showed up later and was never there before. It is possible.
Oddly enough, there is precedence for this theory. It is scant and may seem a bit of a reach. But what we have existing now by way of manuscripts is not always representative of what was available in history. Scholars of the Reformation era seemed to have more Greek manuscripts containing the Comma. John Gill (1697 – 1771) says on 1 John 5:7, the Comma is "in the Complutensian edition, the compilers of which made use of various copies; and out of sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephens', nine of them had it" (Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible).
John Calvin, said on 1 John 5:7:
"The whole of this verse has been by some omitted. Jerome thinks that this has happened through design rather than through mistake, and that indeed only on the part of the Latins. But as even the Greek copies do not agree, I dare not assert any thing on the subject." (Calvin's Commentaries).
There were apparently enough manuscripts containing the Comma then that is was not as black and white against the Comma in those days either. Those manuscripts containing the Comma that Calvin and Gill refer to have seemingly been lost since the Reformation era. There were sufficient religious and political turmoils of that era to give rise to manuscripts being lost. We ought not think of the evidence today as the only evidence that has ever existed in history. It is possible that sixteenth century scholars had more than we do. I’m just concerned what this does for those who assert verbal-plenary preservation of the text if it must be admitted that the comma was not technically preserved.
Additionally, we need to think about “Umlauts”. I didn’t know what those were either. These are simply double dots in the margins of manuscripts next to some verses that indicate that the scribe was aware of another variant of the text there. In the fourth century Codex Vaticanus, there are apparently Umlauts present at the place of 1 John 5:7 indicating that the scribe, as early as the fourth century, was aware that another variant existed there. It is very possible that that is our Comma. But again, this does not mean the scribe believed it was supposed to be in the text. He was just aware that other manuscripts differed in that place.
Also of note is that even in the earliest manuscripts, there are enough variants of 1 John 5:6, 1 John 2:23b, 1 John 4:3 and 1 John 5:13 to suggest that the doctrine of the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union were under non-standard treatment. By that I mean one of two things. Either John’s doctrine was technical and difficult (as the trinity and hypostatic union are) and thus scribes wrote margin notes, and often differed with each other.
Or, as some would argue, some copyists were looking to avoid the doctrine of the trinity altogether and attempted to insure it’s exclusion and obfuscation. They presume 1 John was under attack early on. If you’ve ever studied through or preached through John’s Epistles, it is understandable why one would conclude this. Those writing are extremely black and white regarding who is and who is not genuinely born-again and much of it centers around who you think Jesus is. It’s east to conclude it was under attack.
However, this does not explain why the Comma would have been the subject of such an exclusion while other passages that support the trinity were not excluded. If ill-intentioned copyists were gunning for the doctrine of the trinity, their aim was bad, because they didn’t remove the doctrine from all of other places it exists.
Many early false teachers would have seen Johns epistles specifically as a blatant affront to their doctrinal sensibilities. It does appear John was rebutting Gnostics throughout the Epistle, a group that would have certainly given rise to pseudo-intellectual scholars with biases against the Deity of Christ (his inclusion in the trinity). In other words, early heretics had motive to exclude Trinitarian verses and statements on the Deity of Jesus. It’s just that attacking the Comma alone means they weren’t very thorough. So, for that reason, it seems unlikely that a doctrinal attack was taking place over the comma.
Socrates of Constantinople, a 5th century Church historian, said the following in his criticism of a man named Nestorius:
“Now in any event, he did not perceive that in the Catholic epistle of John it was written in the ancient copies, 'Every spirit that severs Jesus is not from God.' [1 John 4:3] For the removal of this [passage] out the ancient copies are understandable by those who wished to sever the divinity from the human economy. And thus by the very language of the ancient interpreters, some have corrupted this epistle, aiming at severing the humanity from the divinity. But the humanity is united to the divinity, and are not two, but one.”
The assertion that removing portions of 1 John as a doctrinal attack was already being made in the 5th century. But to go back to an earlier point, Socrates of Constantinople here uses a different reading of 1 John 4:3 that does not exist in any presently available Greek manuscripts. I had mentioned the possibility that the majority of earlier manuscripts today might not include portions commonly available long ago. This seems to either prove that point, or suggest that this man was paraphrasing - another common practice.
Many of the early Greek and Latin church fathers (as they are commonly called) knew of the Comma and quoted it, but this is a blog post not a thesis and I need to stop somewhere. I am simply making the point that between doctrinal attack of the deity of Christ, and the challenge of recording complex doctrine an leaving oneself marginal notes, the doctrinal attack is the less likely of the two since Christ deity was not removed from other places as well.
One pastor friend of mine said, “God promised to preserve his words for all generations, but God never promised to preserve the most ancient copies of his words.” That is certainly possible. However, that may be a sort of semantical salad. It neither proves nor disproves the comma.
All this is to say that simply because scholars in the twenty-first century do not have the earlier manuscripts with the Comma is not enough reason to dogmatically conclude that it should be omitted since there is evidence that early manuscripts with the Comma may have existed. But that’s only a “maybe”. And simply because we don’t have those manuscripts today does not mean some scribe invented it and stuck it in later, though we have some evidence of that incidentally happening with some scribal marginal notes. It’s just that based on hard evidence alone, the comma was not there originally. The needle of evidence leans toward that view slightly more than the other.
It is certainly fair then to simply accept either rendering of 1 John 5, but with an understanding of the evidences for and against the comma. Accepting it doesn’t lead to false doctrine. Rejecting the comma doesn’t remove the doctrine of the trinity from the bible. It is thus inconsequential.
I do realize that much of the arguments in favor of the comma are entirely from near silence. That’s what makes the subject so difficult. But by no means is the comma the only passage that deals with the triunity of our God and the deity of Christ, so we’re not at a loss without the Comma, as seen in 1 Corinthians 2 below. Exclusion of the Comma does not destroy these precious doctrines because of all of the other biblical support those doctrines have. That means we have to be careful about smearing the character and motives of others who do exclude it. They are not trying to attack our doctrine, they are simply following the weight of textual evidence.
2 Corinthians 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.
UPDATE 8/8/19: As a commenter affirmed below, the doctrine of the Trinity does not fall apart without the Comma. I agree. So, with his help, I have appended additional scriptural references below in support of the doctrine of the Trinity.
If you’ve found this helpful, please consider sharing it with a friend. Thanks!
A few resources:
Other scriptures affirming the Trinity or aspects of it:
“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…” (Genesis 1:27a)
“And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3:16-17)
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1)
"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." (John 1:14)
"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." (John 1:18)
"I and my Father are one." (John 10:30)
"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." (John 8:58)
"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (John 14:26)
"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:" (John 15:26)
"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;" (John 14:16)
"And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God." (John 20:28)
"(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)" (1 John 1:2)
"Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also." (1 John 2:23)
"Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. (1 John 4:13-15)
"Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." (2 John 1:9)
“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.” (2 Corinthians 13:14)
"John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen." (Revelation 1:4-6)
Links:
http://nttranscripts.uni-muenster.de/AnaServer?NTtranscripts+0+start.anv (view images/scans of actual fragments by selecting the text > select “B - 03” > “Go”. Then under “manuscript descriptions” look for fragments with “img” next to their designation.)
PDF’s:
List of principal witnesses, see page 26
Phillip B. Payne on Umlauts (Pg 112, footnote 34)
Commentaries discussing the Comma for reference:
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible - comments on 1 John 5:7
Calvin's Commentaries - comments on 1 John 5:7
This article was transferred from my previous site. Here are what others said at the time of the original writing…
“Good examination of a fascinating topic! I think it's worth noting that the doctrine of the Trinity does not depend on this single passage. There are thousands and thousands of christians who defend the doctrine of the Trinity without these verses. Thanks for writing on this topic!” — OSchrock
“Thanks for taking the time to read it. You're correct, the doctrine of the Trinity does not fall apart without the Comma. I presumed that in the writing of the post, but it does bear mentioning as you said, so I just appended some additional scriptures to the endnotes in support of the doctrine of the trinity. By the way, check out that link in the resources to the University of Munster Institute for New Testament Textual Research. It's a neat tool.” — Thomas